"The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing." ---- Stephen R. Covey
November 2010 Archives
Bloomberg.com reports today that Washington-based Third Way, a Democratic-led policy group, proposed a plan that would raise the retirement age, trim or eliminate Social Security benefits for high-income retirees, limit cost-of-living increases and provide money to help young workers create private retirement accounts.
The only part of that I agree with is providing money to help young workers create private retirement accounts. Let's talk about trimming or eliminating Social Security benefits for high-income retirees. Tax policy does influence behavior. We have watched for years as senior citizens divested themselves of personal assets in order to have Medicare pay for their nursing homes. We have seen people wait to accept jobs as unemployment benefits have been extended. We have seen people put off marriage as the marriage tax was put into effect. To deny people who have paid into Social Security all their lives the benefits they were promised because they were successful and planned ahead is not a good idea. First of all, it breaks the promise made to all of us who have been paying into Social Security since we began working, second, it sends a message that if we plan for our retirement, we will be penalized, and third, it allows Congress to tell us exactly how much we are allowed to earn. Why in the world are we even considering allowing the government to limit the amount of Social Security someone can receive because that person actually planned for their retirement? This will ultimately be one of the government's 'redistribution of wealth' plans. Keep in mind that I posted an article in October (RightWingGranny) about Senate hearings which discussed taking over 401K plans of private citizens. How about means testing Congressional pensions? Or taking over the 401K plans of Congressmen? Anyone want to comment on the likelihood of either of these things happening?
Please be aware that if you follow the link to the source article at CNS News, you will see some very disturbing pictures. The article is reporting on an exhibit currently at the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery which features "images of an ant-covered Jesus, male genitals, naked brothers kissing, men in chains, Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts, and a painting the Smithsonian itself describes in the show's catalog as "homoerotic."" The exhibit is titled, "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture," and will be there until February 13th.
According to the article:
"The Smithsonian Institution has an annual budget of $761 million, 65 percent of which comes from the federal government, according to Linda St. Thomas, the Smithsonian's chief spokesperson. The National Portrait Gallery itself received $5.8 million in federal funding in fiscal year 2010, according to St. Thomas. It also received $5.8 million in federal funding in fiscal 2009, according to the museum's annual report. The gallery's overall funding in that year was $8 million."
I am not opposed to free speech, but I am for respect. An ant-covered Jesus is not appropriate at any time, much less Christmas. Paying for this picture with American tax dollars is obscene. Why is it that the FBI paid a visit to a pastor in Florida who was going to burn a Koran because they were afraid of the Muslim backlash, but no one cares if Christians are insulted? Why is this not considered hate-speech?
Today's Daily Caller posted a small section of the recent document dump from Wikileaks.
According to the article:
"On a February trip to the Middle East, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA) told Qatari leaders that the Golan Heights should be returned to Syria, that a Palestinian capital should be established in East Jerusalem as part of the Arab-Israeli peace process, and that he was "shocked" by what he saw on a visit to Gaza"
Israel without the Golan Heights is indefensible. To give that land to Syria is to invite an invasion. The article points out that the discussion of the Arab-Israeli peace process took place in Qatar with Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani and the Emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa in February. To me this seems to be a total sell-out of Israel.
I guess I have one major questions--how come all the peace demands have been made on Israel? Where is the concern for the number of rockets that have been fired into Israeli civilian areas by Israel's neighbors? If John Kerry is suggesting more 'land for peace' deals for Israel (none of which have worked in the past), is he ignorant of the history of the Middle East or is he simply not a friend of Israel?
Yesterday's Worcester Telegram posted an article about the voter irregularities that occurred in Worcester during the recent election. Nick Kotsopoulos, who wrote the article, suggests that those people protesting some of the behavior at the polling places had best not hold their breath waiting for satisfaction from state election officials about their complaints.
The article reports:
"That's because members of the group Neighbor to Neighbor apparently did not violate state election laws by accompanying people into the voting booth and supposedly telling them how to vote; in some instances, they even actually marked their ballots for them, as some poll observers said they witnessed in affidavits filed last week with the Worcester Election Commission."
The article further reports:
"Neighbor to Neighbor workers were also seen bringing pre-marked sample ballots to the polls that told people they brought to the polls what address to give poll workers and whom to vote for, according to the affidavits.
"Under state law, voters who need assistance can bring anyone they want into the voting booth to provide the help they need, even having that person fill out their ballot for them, if they so wish."
It seems to me that it might be time to re-examine the current law about going into the voting booth with people or marking their ballots for them. The article points out that some Hispanic voters claimed to need interpreters, although ballots were printed in both Spanish and English.
Today's Washington Examiner posted an article about where campaign money came from in the last election. The numbers are basically opposite of what we have been led to believe.
The article reports:
"Final campaign finance figures from the Federal Election Commission have come in, and they show a very different picture from the one painted by Obama and most of the media. The Democrats' advantage in money from traditional PAC's was just about 10 times the size of the Republicans' advantage from the new Super PAC's."
The PAC's in the healthcare industry gave 58 percent of their contributions to Democrats. The drug industry spent $6.68 million in PAC money on Democrats and $5.12 million on Republicans.
The article further reported:
"Obama's liked to pose as the scourge of Wall Street, but here again, the facts clash with Obama's rhetoric. Democrats outraised Republicans from the "securities and investment" industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, including a 27.2 percent advantage in PAC money from the industry. Church Schumer was by far the top recipient."
President Obama has continually claimed that the special interests and big business are in bed with the Republicans. Well, the facts show that Democrats have received more money than the Republicans from special interests and big business. I guess the facts really don't matter if you can get away with the lie.
Tampa Bay Online reported yesterday that Republican Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn are planning to let ethanol subsidies expire at the end of this year.
On July 10th of this year, the Director's Blog at the Congressional Budget Office posted the following:
"The costs to taxpayers of reducing consumption of petroleum fuels differ by biofuel. Such costs depend on the size of the tax credit for each fuel, the changes in federal revenues that result from the difference in the excise taxes collected on sales of gasoline and sales of biofuels, and the amount of biofuels that would have been produced if the credits had not been available. The costs to taxpayers of using a biofuel to reduce gasoline consumption by one gallon are $1.78 for ethanol and $3.00 for cellulosic ethanol. The cost of reducing an equivalent amount of diesel fuel (that is, a quantity having the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline) using biodiesel is $2.55, based on the tax policy in place through last year."
The bottom line here is that ethanol has cost us a tremendous amount of money as both taxpayers and consumers and has not worked. Ethanol has also increased the cost of corn and thus the cost of food around the world.
The bottom line of the Congressional Budget Office report:
"In the future, the scheduled rise in mandated volumes would require the production of biofuels in amounts that are probably beyond what the market would produce even if the effects of the tax credits were included."
The bottom line here is simple--we tried, we failed, let's move on. The free market has always been the best way to develop new technology. Profit is a powerful motive. We have wasted years funding a program that would have died a natural death had the government not funded it. It is time to let the program die and for the government to stop meddling in free markets!
The Hill reported on Friday that Homeland Security appears to be shutting down websites that facilitate copyright infringement. A website called Torrentfreak.com lists the websites that have been shut down.
The Hill reports:
"ICE appears to be targeting sites that help Internet users download copyrighted music, as well as sites that sell bootleg goods, such as fake designer handbags.
"The sites are replaced with a note from the government: "This domain named has been seized by ICE, Homeland Security Investigations.""
Is this the same ICE that is not securing our borders and not sending illegal aliens who commit crimes home? This is just wrong. It seems to me that these websites would not even be under the jurisdiction of ICE or Homeland Security. Where is the Interstate Commerce Committee on this?
This is disturbing. The only good news in The Hill report:
"The effort comes as Congress considers the Combatting Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). Critics, including Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) say it is too heavy-handed. He has vowed to put a formal hold on the bill."
The practice of shutting down websites needs to end as quickly as it began!
Fox News reported yesterday that 18 former Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) workers have admitted guilt or been convicted on varying charges of election fraud. The punishment has ranged from probation to several months of prison time.
Some of the highlights from the story:
- In Miami, seven former ACORN voter registration canvassers were convicted
- In Pennsylvania, six of seven former ACORN workers who were charged in an investigation were convicted
- In Milwaukee, three former ACORN workers have been convicted
- Kevin Clancy was sentenced to 10 months in prison for his role in submitting falsified voter registration forms before the 2008 election. Clancy will start his sentence once he finishes another sentence he is currently serving for armed robbery.
- Frank Walton pleaded guilty to submitting 54 fake voter registrations during the 2008 presidential campaign
- In Washington state, Kendra Lynn Thill was convicted in March of voter registration fraud in the 2006 midterm election
- In Nevada, a former ACORN supervisor pleaded the equivalent of a no-contest in a case alleging that canvassers were illegally paid to register voters during the 2008 campaign
As you read the above list, remember that these are convictions--not charges. ACORN received taxpayer dollars for many years. They have declared bankruptcy, but have reappeared under new names. The only way to avoid a repeat of the fraud we have seen is to pay attention to any group that is doing mass voter registration drives in any area. Some of these drives are legal and well-intended; some are not.
The Washington Times reported yesterday on the results of the recent Initial Public Offering (IPO) of General Motors stock. The purpose of selling the stock was to begin paying back the government (and thus the American taxpayer) for the bailout of General Motors.
The article reports:
"Thanks to a generous share of GM stock obtained in the company's 2009 bankruptcy settlement, the United Auto Workers is well on its way to recouping the billions of dollars GM owed it -- putting it far ahead of taxpayers who have recouped only about 30 percent of their investment and further still ahead of investors in the old GM who have received nothing."
The article further points out:
"For taxpayers to break even, by contrast, the stock would have to rise to at least $52 and by some estimates as high as $103 -- levels that would take years to achieve."
Aside from the fact that backruptcy laws were not followed so that unions could be rewarded for their support of Democrats in 2008, this is simply morally wrong. The fact that the current backruptcy laws were violated is going to make investors more reluctant to invest in the future. There were also pension funds that owned preferred stock whose rights were violated and not held up in court. (See RightWingGranny article of May 21, 2009, for the lawsuit brought by three Indiana state pension funds for the bankruptcy law violations in the Chrysler bailout). Either we are a nation of laws or we are a nation of elitist privileges. The Obama Administration has caused me to wonder which of these is true.
I suspect there are other cities in America where the politics is as colorful as Chicago, but I really couldn't name one offhand. The current entertainment in Chicago is the race to become Mayor of the city.
When Rahm Emanuel resigned as President Obama's Chief of Staff, political pundits told everyone that he resigned in order to run for Mayor of Chicago. Shortly afterward, Mr. Emanuel announced that he would be running for Mayor of Chicago. Knowing the history of elections in Chicago, we only needed to sit back and watch him get voted in. Well, not so fast.
Hot Air reported yesterday:
"Election law attorney Burt Odelson, who also has served as an adviser to several of Emanuel's opponents in the race, is planning to file a legal challenge with the Chicago Board of Elections as early as tomorrow arguing that Emanuel does not meet Illinois' residency requirement for candidates running for municipal office. In an interview with The Fix, Odelson said that he is representing a group of Chicago citizens and that no campaign is involved in the challenge."
Obviously, Rahm Emanuel has been living in Washington, D. C., since at least 2008. He owns a house in Chicago, voted absentee ballot in Illinois, and has his car registered there. According to Illinois law, candidates have to be a resident of the state for a year prior to the election. Mr. Emanuel moved back to the state in October.
The article concludes:
"I have no idea how this case will end, though I suspect Emanuel will win it because, well, we're talking about Chicago and Rahm Emanuel here. I can't imagine there's a judge in the city who would stand in the way of a guy who will chase you down and accost you in a shower to get what he wants. However, it could slow Emanuel down long enough for a relatively popular icon of Chicago politics with US Senate experience and the Barack Obama stamp of approval to sneak in and beat him."
If Rahm Emanuel were military, I believe he would remain a resident regardless of where he was actually living; however, I am not sure if that rule applies to White House employees. This could be very interesting, but I have a feeling it will be resolved quickly--after all, it is Chicago.
Yesterday's Jerusalem Post reported that Canada will not attend the United Nations conference on racism to be held in Durban, South Africa, in September of next year.
According to the article:
"(Canada's Immigration) Minister, Jason Kenney, said Canada has lost faith in the Durban process, a conference that began in 2001 to develop strategies to defeat racism.
"Canada is clearly committed to the fight against racism, but the Durban process commemorates an agenda that actually promotes racism rather than combats it.""
The article further points out:
"But most offensive to Canada and several other countries were speeches laced with anti-Israeli rhetoric. Canada led a boycott of Durban II in Geneva last year, where Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad railed against the Jewish state."
What has happened to the United Nations is very simple. A group of nations who do not support freedom or democracy has formed a very powerful bloc inside the United Nations. Because of this, the UN's original ideas of stopping wars, supporting human rights, and supporting freedom have been usurped by this group. The UN has lost its original mission. The only way to regain the UN's original mission would be for the democracies and freedom-loving countries of the world to become more powerful within the organization than the group of dictators, thugs, and tyrants who have banned together for their own mischief. Since that is unlikely to happen, it is time to ask the United Nations to leave New York and for the United States to stop financial support of the organization and withdraw its membership.
Cheers to Canada for being willing to take a stand!
The Fox News Liveshots Blog reported yesterday on the request by Sharif El-Gamal, the head of SOHO Properties, the developers of the Ground Zero Mosque, for federal taxpayer money to help him build the controversial and contentious project. The funds are designated to help lower Manhattan recover from the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Wait a minute--I thought the people who supported the construction of this mosque said that it wasn't part of ground zero (it was--part of the landing gear of one of the airplanes crashed through the roof of the building).
The request is for $5 million in federal money. According to El-Gamal, the money would be used for "social service programs....such as domestic violence prevention, Arabic and other foreign language classes, programs and services for homeless veterans, two multi-cultural arts exhibits and immigration services." I have a problem with this statement--it is well known that in sharia law a husband is permitted to beat his wife--that fact was used in the defense of a Muslim husband in New Jersey. If it is legal to beat your wife, what is domestic violence prevention?
The article reports:
"(Congressman Peter) King also notes that the reported $5 million request represents nearly one-third of all the $17 million that is now available. 265 groups have applied for the funding."
Let's see--Muslim terrorists destroyed the area and now a Muslim group wants American taxpayer money to build a monument to their victory on the site (see the historic record on where Muslims build mosques and what they represent). If anyone approves the taxpayer money going to this project, they deserve to be impeached or fired, whichever applies.
On Monday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article on the New York Times story that the House Ethics Committee has postponed the ethics trial of Maxine Waters because it found more evidence of direct intervention by her office to benefit the bank in which her husband owned a substantial interest. According to newly found e-mails, her chief of staff directly coordinated with other members of the House Financial Services Committee on behalf of OneUnited.
Mr. Morrissey reports:
"That opens up questions about the ethics not just of Waters but of those committee members who cooperated with Moore and his pleas for "small bank" assistance. OneUnited ended up with millions in TARP money, and unlike other applicants, got to count that cash among its assets before actually receiving the money. The preferential treatment the bank received -- unique among over 700 applicants for TARP money -- seems oddly coincidental to Waters' status and the newly exposed machinations of Moore on her behalf."
This may make for a very interesting investigation. Mr. Morrissey concludes:
"How long will it be before the House takes up this case? One would presume that the Democrats would want to conclude the ethics trial before the end of the lame-duck session in order to have a majority on the House floor for Waters' eventual punishment, but the news of the e-mails may have them hoping they can get everyone to forget about it forever. That's not likely to happen, but it may be a little more likely that a future Ethics committee may be looking into the actions of other Financial Services Committee members."
I have to agree that the Democrats would probably want this to magically disappear into oblivion or want to deal with it while they are still in the majority in the House. To have this case still open in January seems to me to be a very risky move--if I were on the House Financial Services Committee, I wouldn't be sleeping soundly right now!
Townhall.com has posted an article about some of the legislative goals that have failed in Congress that President Obama will attempt to enact through other means. Two of these items are the implementation of Cap and Trade through the Environmental Protection Agency and the implementation of 'card check' through the National Labor Relations Board.
The article reports:
"The EPA is currently soliciting public comments for its plan to use the Clean Air Act of 1970 to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The Clean Air Act, as the name indicates, is designed to fight against pollution -- unhealthy chemicals that are belched into the air by smokestacks. It was passed to fight sulfur dioxide, particulates, nitrous oxides and other chemicals that cause human diseases. To use it to fight carbon dioxide -- which we all breathe without ill effects -- because of concerns about global warming is a perversion of the law."
Does this mean the EPA is going to control how fast we breathe?
On card check, the article reports:
"Meanwhile, Craig Becker, the former chief counsel of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) -- now the head of the NLRB -- has secured a 3-2 party line majority to repeal the Dana decision, which mandates secret ballots in unionization elections. The NLRB will rule that if a majority of workers check off that they want a union on cards, then the union will automatically be approved without a secret ballot vote of the entire workforce."
Both of these moves are going to have a very negative impact on our economy. I wonder if Congress has the power to undo these decrees. Hopefully, the new Congress seated in January will be able to undo the damage that would be done by putting these two ideas into effect.
My Way reported yesterday that cabinet secretaries, top congressional leaders and an exclusive group of senior U.S. officials are exempt from toughened new airport screening procedures when they fly commercially with government-approved federal security details. Pilots and flight attendants are also exempt from the procedures. How about also exempting 70-year-old grandmothers and children under the age of 10?
The horror stories coming out about these new procedures are coming fast and furious--from women chosen because of their body types, to small children being touched inappropriately, to a man whose colostomy bag was broken during the patdown. The horror stories, combined with the fact that the people who may be a danger are being ignored while grandmothers and young women and children are being routinely groped, are reason enough to find a different way to do this. There are serious questions as to whether these searches are constitutional, and I hope there will be some class action suits coming quickly.
The current screening procedure is not going to make us any safer--there are doubts as to whether the new procedures would have discovered the underwear bomber or anyone else carrying a small amount of explosive powder. If the fear is that an explosive device would be brought on a plane, just let the bomb-sniffing dogs roam freely through our airports, or profile people with certain VISA stamps on their passports.
Today's CNS News posted an article today about the shelling of an island near the disputed sea border between North and South Korea.
According to the article:
"The skirmish began when Pyongyang warned the South to halt military drills in the area, according to South Korean officials. When Seoul refused and began firing artillery into disputed waters, albeit away from the North Korean shore, the North retaliated by bombarding the small island of Yeonpyeong, which houses South Korean military installations and a small civilian population."
There is a lot going on here other than the shelling of the island.
NPR reported yesterday:
""We walked over to the window and that's where we were stunned, because we saw row after row after row of centrifuges."
"So says Robert Carlin, one of three Stanford University scientists who reported over the weekend about what they said is a "modern, small industrial-scale uranium enrichment facility with 2,000 centrifuges" at Yongbyon, North Korea."
This is part of a much larger picture. There are a few things to look at here when hearing news of the attack on South Korea by North Korea. First of all, North Korea is not able to feed its starving population. Their only export is weapons. The money gained from weapons sales is their only hope for sustaining a viable economy. North Korea is in the process of a leadership transition. Kim Jong-il is probably dying and will be replaced by 26-year old Kim Jong-Un. I have no idea how happy the people of North Korea are with the leadership change.
Also keep in mind that North Korea is essentially a puppet state of China. Regardless of the fact that America is a major trading partner of China, the government of China does not wish us well. China is also closely aligned with Iran. Any disruption by North Korea tends to take the focus of Americans off Iran's nuclear program and allows Iran to move forward under less scrutiny.
There is also a history of North Korea making aggressive moves during the American holiday season. I am not sure what this latest provocation is about, but how the Obama Administration handles it is important. Weakness will create more aggressive behavior from North Korea and too much strength will create a war situation. This requires a very deft political hand.
Congress has not yet reached agreement on whether or not to extend the current tax rates (the extension being debated is not a tax cut for anyone--it is merely a continuation of the current tax rates).
Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted an article yesterday about some aspects of the debate. The article points out:
"According to Continetti (Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard), the current Democratic strategy is to extend current middle class tax rates "permanently" while setting an expiration for upper-income rates. From the Democrats' perspective, this approach makes plenty of sense. Raising taxes on the "rich," which includes small businesses, is politically dangerous now, while the economy stagnates. The Dems likely would be far better off trying to soak the "rich" later on when (1) the issue is no longer coupled with tax rates for the those who make less than $250,000 and (2) the economy, one hopes, has improved."
Decoupling the tax rates of those who make more than $250,000 from those who make less than $250,000 is a really bad idea. (Just in case anyone assumes that I have a personal interest in this, I am not in danger of making $250,000 a year). Unfortunately, inflation happens. It will probably take at least ten years, but we will reach a point where $250,000 is middle class. At that point the majority of Americans will be paying a higher tax rate than they imagined.
The article also points out:
"But the biggest risk would be incurred by President Obama. He still "owns" the economy in the public's view. It would, I think, be astonishingly stupid if, in Continettit's words, "the same team that brought you Obamacare [were to] produce, through its inaction, the largest tax increase in history.""
John Hinderaker at Power Line also points out that the Democrats in recent years, for reasons unknown, have become the party of the wealthy. To raise taxes on the wealthy might easily cost the Democrats that demographic.
It will be interesting to see if the Democrat-controlled Congress will deal with the extension of the current tax rates in the lame-duck session or if they will let the Republicans deal with it in January.
Today's Worcester Telegram posted an article about a Worcester Election Commission Monday night.
According to the article:
"In sworn affidavits presented to the commission last night, most of their allegations were leveled against the community activist group Neighbor to Neighbor. The poll observers said they repeatedly saw representatives of the group accompanying people into voting booths and telling them how to vote."
Len Mead, who attended the meeting, noted the following:
"The memo supporters responded saying that when volunteers spotted illegalities they were constantly rebuffed or treated with hostility by Democrat Poll Wardens who said the challenges to the eligibility of voters was "discrimination." Further the election commission was told that in one instance, at least 20 people over the course of a day reported being called by "Neighbor to Neighbor" people who identified themselves as calling from the Election Commission with instructions that voting was required. One individual stated, "They called to send me here - what do I do." Another said, "I never voted before, I need you to check it over" and the "help" was given in hushed tones, in Spanish, with much touch of the ballot - pointing to spots on the ballot, and with encouraging remarks as instructions were followed.
"The Election Commission promised to send the 12 page list of voter fraud allegations to the Secretary of State and ask for clarification of some of the issues raised, particularly the issue of whether mentally incompetent individuals under guardianship should be allowed to vote at all even with "assistance."
"When asked for an estimated date when a response and action might be forthcoming, an Election Commission spokesman responded, "We couldn't even give a range of dates knowing the Secretary of State has many issues before them now.""
This article is based on two articles, one by Guy Benson at Townhall.com and one at the Weekly Standard Blog. At Townhall, Guy Benson reports on a regulation in Obamacare that allows the Health and Human Services department to mandate insurance companies to spend at least 80 cents of the premium dollar on medical care and quality. For employer plans covering more than 50 people, the requirement is 85 cents. Insurers that fall short of the mark will have to issue their customers a rebate. I wonder if the 80 cents includes customer service representatives. Can you imagine the disaster that will occur as a result of this law if customer service is not included in the 80 cents? When did the government discover the right to tell private corporations how they can spend their money?
The article at Townhall further explains:
"This is incredible. By its own actuary's admission, the federal government's new healthcare overhaul fails to curb spiraling costs -- which was a prime raison detre for the new legislation in the first place. Not satisfied with missing the mark on Obamacare, and racking up tens of trillions in unfunded government-run healthcare liabilities, the federal government is now insisting that private insurers accede to its
proven incompetenceinfinite wisdom on cost-reduction -- under penalty of law."
Meanwhile, the Weekly Standard Blog reports
"The Congressional Budget Office projects that Medicare Advantage funding would be cut by more than a quarter of a trillion dollars ($254 billion) in Obamacare's real first decade (2014 to 2023), which amounts to cuts of about $25,000 for each of the roughly 10 million Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Those cuts wouldn't be made if Obamacare is repealed in January of 2013, but $8 billion will be cut by the end of 2012. These Medicare cuts -- both the $8 billion and the $254 billion -- wouldn't be used to make Medicare more solvent over the long haul, but would instead be spent on Obamacare."
This is no way to run a healthcare program. We need to repeal and replace as soon as possible.
The Boston Herald is reporting today:
"Potheads who've found the grass is greener under the state's mellowed-out marijuana law have racked up as much as $64,500 in unpaid fines in Boston alone, thumbing their noses at hundreds of citations that cops have written up, but authorities are powerless to enforce."
Is this really a surprise? The Herald further reports:
"Of the more than 760 $100 fines written up in Boston this year as of Nov. 4, police list 645 as unpaid with no way of accounting if any were cleared up at courts or by drop-ins to City Hall, a Herald review found."
If this new law was supposed to raise money for the state, it has obviously failed.
The Herald points out the problem:
"Cheryl Sibley, chief administrator of Boston Municipal Court, said there is "very limited recourse" for the courts to force payment if potheads don't request a hearing to fight the ticket and police don't seek a civil contempt hearing to enforce it."
Meanwhile, the other side of the story:
"But Bill Downing, director of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition, insists the new right to toke should not have a price tag.
""There's this concept called freedom. The people of Massachusetts voted to tell the cops to leave these people alone. If they don't pay their tickets, who cares? What, are you going to float city and town budgets on the backs of the pot-smoking public?""
I have two comments on this. If cigarette smokers pay excessive taxes on their cigarettes, why shouldn't pot smokers pay to smoke? Also, no one has caused a car accident because they were driving under the influence of tobacco, can pot smokers say the same?
Yesterday I posted an article about a bill in the lame-duck session of Congress that would allow the Attorney General to shut down a website if he (or she) perceived copyright infringement issues. This could be done on the Attorney General's orders without proof or other inconvenient items. The danger here of course is that the power would be used politically. I say that to preface an article that shows how the internet can influence our perspective and refresh our memories.
I guess I am naive to believe that politicians tell the truth, but I actually believe that some of them do. The internet, even with its faults, makes it very easy to review the recent history of a person's statements.
When I watched Fox News Sunday yesterday, I heard Hillary Clinton say that she is not runing for President in 2012, 2016, or ever again. RealClearPolitics has the video and the write-up of Hillary saying, "I am very happy doing what I'm doing and I am not in any way interested in or persuing anything in elective office." As soon as I heard that I was reminded of a previous statement Mrs. Clinton made in when she ran for the Senate in New York. When she initially ran in 2000, she vowed to finish her term--not run for President. When I went looking for news reports from 2006 to see if she made the same pledge when she ran for re-election, I couldn't find any reports on whether or not she had made the pledge. If anyone reading this has better information, I would love to hear it. My question is this, "When Mrs. Clinton ran for re-election to the Senate in 2006, did she say she would finish her term and not run for President?" Was her statement yesterday more of the same? I don't know. This could be an interesting year.
The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act was introduced on 9/20/2010 by Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. On 11/18/2010 it was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 648. On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the bill.
Thomas.gov summarizes the bill as follows:
"Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act - Amends the federal criminal code to authorize the Attorney General (AG) to commence an action for injunctive relief against a domain name used by an Internet site that is "dedicated to infringing activities," even where such a domain name is not located in the United States. Defines an Internet site that "dedicated to infringing activities" as a site that is: (1) subject to civil forfeiture; (2) designed primarily to offer goods or services in violation of federal copyright law; or (3) selling counterfeit goods.
"Requires the AG to maintain a public listing of domain names that the Department of Justice (DOJ) determines are dedicated to infringing activities but for which the AG has not filed an action. Allows parties to petition the AG to remove such a domain name from the list and obtain judicial review of the final determination in a civil action."
This really sounds like a good idea, but there are a few problems. A website called Wired.com points out:
"...bill that would give the Attorney General the right to shut down websites with a court order if copyright infringement is deemed "central to the activity" of the site -- regardless if the website has actually committed a crime. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is among the most draconian laws ever considered to combat digital piracy, and contains what some have called the "nuclear option," which would essentially allow the Attorney General to turn suspected websites "off.""
Wired further points out:
"But the law's critics do not believe that giving the federal government the right to shut down websites at will based upon a vague and arbitrary standard of evidence, even if no law-breaking has been proved, is a particularly good idea."
The idea here is to stop the pirating of music, music videos, and creative properties where the creators should be paid for their work. That is a noble idea. Pirating music is not a good thing, but it is evidently fairly common among college students. I have no problem with efforts to put a stop to this practice, but the risk of abusing the law are tremendous.
If the AG wants to shut down a site that is politically opposed to an administration, this law would give them the right to claim copyright violations and shut down the site without due process. I don't trust any politician with that kind of power.
This is a well-intentioned bill that needs more work. I am hopeful that it will not be rushed through in the lame-duck session. It needs some sort of controls built into it that will protect free speech rights of people who disagree with whatever party is in power. It would be a really good idea to postpone this until it can be looked at more closely and brought into line with First Amendment rights.
Today's Washington Post posted an article by Katherine Ellison, the mother of a child (now a teenager) who was diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity (ADHD) disorder in 2004. Mrs. Ellison took an aggressive approach to dealing with the disorder, and the article details her dealings with both her son's behavior and the teachers who were faced with having him in their classrooms. I would like to say up front that this article was significant to me as a mother who has raised an ADHD child, who is married to an ADHD husband, whose father-in-law was probably ADHD, and who has a grandson who is ADHD. I have seen the disorder up close and personal. I would also like to add that based on my observations, ADHD acts very differently in girls than it does in boys.
Mrs. Ellison points out:
"...the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, which by one measure sells more than $5 billion worth of ADHD medications each year - and which only in the United States and New Zealand may market directly to the public - but a growing league of all-but-unregulated, usually costly and sometimes wildly imaginative alternatives, including herbal supplements, complicated exercise regimes to stimulate specific brain regions, magnetic mattresses, personal coaches and therapy "assisted" by dolphins."
The article also pointed out:
"At the same time, I discovered that some of the most effective interventions are also the simplest and cheapest. Such as educating myself enough to know how much of my son's behavior is truly within his control. And getting in the habit, with my husband, of finding something to praise about him every day ("Way to breathe!" we began, although we soon found more substantial causes for celebration).
"Regular physical exercise, I found, can also be hugely helpful - and this strategy is backed by a significant amount of research. Russell Barkley, a leading ADHD researcher, cites studies showing that rigorous exercise can increase the brain's capacity for willpower and emotional self-control, arguably the most important skills lacking in many of the clinically distracted. So too, he says, can maintaining adequate levels of glucose, which has led me to stop pestering my wiry, active son about his many trips to the refrigerator."
I am not a doctor, but I can confirm a good part of what she is saying. In the case of my daughter and grandson, sports was a wonderful thing. It seems as if you have to wear these children out a bit physically before they can settle down and study. The other thing I have learned in the case of my husband is that coffee (caffeine) seems to settle his brain down to the point where he can concentrate. I have also learned in the case of my daughter that the hayfever medicine that was supposed to make her sleepy had the opposite effect. Also, like my husband, coffee slows her down so that she can function more easily.
I have no idea what the solution to ADHD is. I commend the author of the article for her willingness to challenge some of the conventional wisdom and find her own solutions. I know that as someone watching the fourth generation of ADHD, that may actually be the only answer. Bless you, Mrs. Ellison. I wish you continued success is dealing with the problem.
Just one further note. So far all the family members with ADHD have been very bright and very successful. I wish that for you also.
A friend of mine e-mailed this to me--The Seasons Of Life. Since every person alive has experienced good times, bad times, and had to accept the fact that we are all getting older, I would like to share this video. Please follow the link for a truly beautiful video. Thank you, Pat, for sending it!
Unfortunately, I have no answers to the problem cited in this story. I am, however, very concerned with what has been going on in American elections in the past few cycles--false registrations, illegal voters, etc.
Hot Air reported Saturday on two new voting machines found in Buffalo, New York. In a different incident, the article reports:
"This story is hardly the only report of problems. Ed Morrissey previously reported on broad problems with the Tim Bishop race in Long Island where a hand recount produced a startlingly different total than the optical scan machines recorded. In other precincts we saw reports of delays in getting counts out and candidates suddenly doing surprisingly well in areas where they had been consistently polling weakly."
This is disturbing. We have seen similar incidents on Massachusetts where when a recount for a state office was done, eighteen votes simply disappeared. I hope that sometime in the very near future we can create a more reliable vote audit trail.
There is so much reported about the war in Afghanistan that it is sometimes hard to know who to believe. As anyone who reads this blog regularly knows, the source I trust is Michael Yon. He is a former Green Beret who has been embedded with the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since December 2004. Incidently, at his website he currently has some beautiful pictures of the Himalaya near Mount Everest where he has been climbing recently.
He posted a link on Facebook today:
"I put weight in this report because I know the reporter, Mike Gudgell, from Iraq. We spent much time talking there starting in 2007 and have stayed in touch quite often. We met again earlier this year in Afghanistan and talked all morning. Mike Gudgell is very smart and no nonsense. (He married no ...nonsense, too: His wife climbed Mt. Everest.) Mike seems to sense some change, as have I.
"Have said it a thousand times, but will say it again. I put particular weight on General Petraeus's assessment. "P4" is far too smart and long-thinking to BS about the situation. He knows that someday this war will end, and all that will be left for him will be his track record. I watch him closely. He's going to give his honest assessment."
The article he is referring to is found at abc news. The article was written on November 9 of this year.
Yesterday Fox News posted an article detailing how two different churches handled the issue of their congregations using Facebook.
The article reports that Rev. Cedric Miller of Living Word Christian Fellowship Church in Neptune, N.J.,ordered about 50 married officials at his church to delete their accounts with social networking sites or resign from their positions. Miller said some 20 couples had run into marital troubles because their spouses connected with or re-ignited a relationship with an ex-flame.
In contrast, the article reports:
"Danielle Hartland, communications director of Grace Church in Erie, Pa., says Facebook itself is not the problem, because it's morally neutral. "The thing is, Facebook is neither evil or good; it just exists," she says. "What you do with it determines what it becomes.""
The article details the stands that a number of churches have taken on the use of Facebook and notes that some churches are using the site to increase communication among their members. Please follow the link to the article, it is an interesting report.
On a personal note, I am on Facebook, as are many members of my church. Sometimes it is an easy way to convey last minute changes in events or plans and sometimes it is an easy way to encourage someone if you don't have the time for a visit or a phone call. Because many of the young people are also on Facebook and are friends with many of the adults in the church and the leadership of the church, it is a good way to keep up with the interests of the younger members of the church. I personally think the good uses of Facebook outweigh the bad.
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire Blog reported on the game of chicken currently being played in Congress and with the White House on extending the current tax rates (I did not call them the Bush Tax Cuts because they are not tax cuts for anyone--they are simply an extension of the current tax rates).
According to the article, this is the basic battle:
"House and Senate Democrats kicked things off Thursday by declaring that they'll bring legislation to the floor of the lame-duck session to extend the current tax rates for families earning less than $250,000 a year, but not for wealthier taxpayers.
"House Republican Leader and Speaker-in-Waiting John Boehner, in this week's least surprising development, said Republicans will oppose any bill that fails to extend all the Bush tax cuts."
Speaker-in-Waiting Boehner has stated, "The last thing our economy needs right now is a massive tax hike on families and small businesses -- and that's what the House Democratic leaders' plan would mean. We will oppose their job-killing tax hike and do everything we can to stop it." I hope he sticks to his guns, because he is right. To split the extension of the tax rates according to income will allow Congress to lower that income ceiling in the future and will create a lot of problems for small business owners who file their business taxes as individual returns.
The Democrats are suggesting all sorts of policies including a deal that would extend all middle-class tax cuts, retain lower rates on dividends and capital gains, raise the threshold on the top rates from $250,000 to $1 million, and cut the corporate tax rate in half and suspend the payroll tax, both for employers and employees, for the first six months of 2011.
Why don't they just extend the current tax rates and let people and businesses plan for the coming year?
There seems to be a lot of unhappiness right now about the recent measures added to the airport screening process in America. The New York Post recently posted an op-ed column on the subject by Michael Totten, an independent foreigh correspondent who does a lot of traveling in the Middle East.
Mr. Totten points out that in Israel, a country that is under constant threat of terrorism, there is profiling--but it is not racial. As an author who travels through the Middle East regularly to both Israel and Arab countries, Mr. Totten is routinely questioned closely when he flies out of an Israeli airport because of the various stamps on his passport.
Mr. Totten points out:
"The system has its advantages, though, aside from the fact that no one looks or reaches into anyone's pants. Israelis don't use security theater to make passengers feel like they're safe. They use real security measures to ensure that travelers actually are safe. Even when suicide bombers exploded themselves almost daily in Israeli cities, not a single one managed to get through that airport."
There are a few problems with trying to import this method to the United States--we are a much bigger country with many more airports. To put the Israeli program in place would require much more intensive training of TSA agents (similar to the training of border patrol agents or customs officials). I am reminded of the fact that the Millennium Bomber was caught because a United States customs inspector, Diana Dean, decided to have a secondary Customs search of Ahmed Ressam's car performed, based on the way that Ressam was acting--not due to any racial profiling or increased searches due to terrorist threats.
On a recent cross country flight, as we sat in the waiting area after going through security, a drug or explosive-sniffing dog moved around the waiting area. It would be interesting to know how effective that is and if it could be more widely used. As I waited to catch a ferry in southern New Jersey a number of years ago, there were police dogs roaming the parking lot. I believe they were bomb-sniffing dogs, but I am not sure.
It does seem that there are alternatives to the current security measures being used at our airports. We need a system that works, that realistically profiles and does not waste the time or invade the privacy of young children, little old ladies (as a little old lady, I like my privacy!), and other non-threatening groups..
Today the MontgomeryAdvertiser.com website reported that the Senate approved a measure to fund $1.2 billion in payments to black farmers for years of discrimination by federal agriculture officials, moving the historic legislation a step forward. I am posting this article because I have a lot of questions about this legislation. The Library of Congress website (Thomas.gov) is down for maintenance, so I am left to my own resources.
According to the article:
""This has been a very, very long process,'' said John Boyd, president of the National Black Farmers Association. "But we made a huge step for justice tonight ... It's bigger than the black farmers. It's a big step in the right direction for race relations.''
"The measure must now go to the House, where Democratic leaders have vowed to take it up before the new Congress begins next year. The $4.6 billion measure includes money to pay American Indians as part of a class-action lawsuit."
Right off the top, I would like to say that it is horrible that the government discriminated against anyone. That is just wrong and hopefully does not happen anymore. But I am not sure that throwing $4.6 billion dollars into a pot to make up for past discrimination is the answer.
The American taxpayers who are paying this money are not the ones who discriminated. If government officials discriminated, they should be the ones held responsible. My next concern is whether or not the $4.6 billion dollars will go to the people who were discriminated against. Will it go to the people harmed by discrimination or to some already wealthy lawyers? What are the percentages? Lawyers are entitled to make money, but theoretically, they should not profit by someone else's misfortune--the majority of the money should go to the people wronged.
As I stated earlier, I have more questions about this than answers.
Today's Washington Examiner reports that the annual salary of American Federation of Teachers (AFT) president Rhonda "Randi" Weingarten was $428,284 in salary and benefits during fiscal year 2010. Normally, there would be no reason to be concerned what anyone's annual salary or benefits are, but when you look at some of the statements Ms. Weingarten is making, it changes the picture.
According to the article, Ms. Weingarten's comment on the report by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform was:
"While we're grateful the commission's chairmen understood the need to hold education investment sacrosanct count on a vigorous fight fight from us over proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare that would hurt an already-ailing middle class. Shared sacrifice means holding millionaires responsible for their fair share of taxes and ending truly wasteful spending, not sawing off essential lifelines for the middle class, who desperately are trying to keep their heads above water in these precarious economic times. We can help solve the financial future of Social Security and Medicare by investing in putting our people back to work, so they can pay into these programs. Nothing is more important to the future solvency of the country."
The article further reports:
"When The Examiner called the AFT to ask whether Weingarten was planning on taking a paycut to demonstrate her belief in shared sacrifice, the spokesman said no. "No, absolutely not. She works 24/7 on behalf of union members and the people we serve. Making sure that people get a great education in public schools in America. She works to the bottom of her soul. You can't put a price tag on that.""
I guess my real first question is, "Where is the $428,284 coming from--union dues?" The thing to remember here is that we are not dealing with the head of a company that is manufacturing a product or actually providing a service to the public. This lady is being paid a very large sum of money to make sure teachers (who are generally public employees) receive generous salaries and benefits. In some states, those generous salaries and benefits are causing major financial difficulties for the states. I don't ever want to see the government dictating salaries or benefits for employers or employees, but in this case, the numbers do seem rather high.
Yesterday The Hill's Blog Briefing Room reported that the Republicans in Congress are planning to force a vote on defunding National Public Radio (NPR) in response to the firing of Juan Williams last month.
According to the article:
"House GOP Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) and Rep. Doug Lamborn (Colo.) said that cutting funds to the publicly subsidized news organization was the winner of the conference's weekly "YouCut" contest, in which the public votes online on spending items they want eliminated."
I have mixed emotions about this. I totally disagree with the funding of NPR on principle. I think the network is perfectly capable of funding itself through good marketing techniques--Big Bird, Elmo, Bob the Builder, etc. ought to be able to raise a significant amount of revenue. I think the firing of Juan Williams was wrong, but I think that is between NPR and Juan Williams. In firing Juan Williams, NPR revealed that it is not a well-balanced source of information, but again, to me, that is between NPR and Juan Williams.
The article points out:
"Under the "YouCut" program, the GOP has promised to force votes on spending cuts chosen by online voters each week that the House is in session. Each week, a series of proposed spending cuts is posted online and the House GOP takes up the cut chosen by the most voters.
"The NPR defunding defeated the termination of "Exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners Program" and the Presidential Election Fund.
"Nearly every one of the items proposed in the Democratic-controlled House has failed to pass. Republicans take control of the House next year."
I suspect that most of these cuts will continue to be voted down during the next month or so, but it will be interesting to see what happens when the Republicans take control of the House of Representatives in January. Remember, the House of Representatives holds the purse strings--they control the spending, and the voters made it rather clear in this last election how they felt about continuing the current spending habits.
Hot Air reported yesterday that Harry Reid is planning to bring the DREAM Act to the floor of the Senate for a standalone vote during the lame-duck session. This is a very interesting move. The DREAM Act is the legilation that will give legal residency to immigrants who arrived in the United States before age 16 and resided here for at least five years, graduated from high school and completed two years of college or military service. They would be subject to background checks, could not have a criminal record, and even if successful would still not be eligible for benefits like Pell grant scholarships. There is no current age limit on these immigrants--they could presently be in their fifties and still meet the requirements.
Allahpundit at Hot Air comments:
"What I can't figure out is whether Reid is moving on this knowing that vulnerable centrists like McCaskill and Tester who are up in 2012 will be inclined to filibuster, or whether he actually thinks he has the votes either via reluctant Blue Dog types signing on or moderate Republicans breaking with the GOP. I assume it's the former and that he's only pushing this in the lame duck session so that he can tell amnesty shills he gave it his very best shot when it fails. But if he can keep his caucus together, he only needs one Republican to push it through. Gulp.
"They're also pressing ahead with DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) in the lame duck. And to think, I thought December would be a slow news month."
I'm really not quite sure why the Democrats are bringing these things up in the lame-duck session. It may be that they believe that this is their last best chance to get extreme legislation through. It will be interesting to see how the more conservative Democrats who have just been voted out of office react to these bills. After January, there will be very few (if any) conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives. The conservative Democrats who were voted into office on the promise that they would maintain their conservative positions were overpowered by Nancy Pelosi, voted to pass liberal bills, and have been voted out of office. The Democrats remaining in the House of Representatives are a much more liberal-leaning group than during the past four years.
There will be an article in the future on the trial of Ahmed Ghailani that contains links to articles that state facts--this is simply a rant.
Ahmed Ghailani was found guilty of conspiracy to blow up government buildings in the al-Qaida attacks on two U.S. embassies in 1998, but he was acquitted on more than 280 other charges. Because some of the evidence that would have been permissible in a military tribunal was not allowed in a civilian trail, the testimony of the man that sold Ahmed Ghailani the dynamite to blow up the embassies was not allowed. That is the reason Ahmed Ghailani was convicted only on the conspiracy charge and not the 224 murder charges and other charges.
The logic in this conviction is also amazing. He is convicted on conspiring to blow up a building, but not convicted in the deaths of the people killed when he blew up the building. That makes my head hurt. Even life in prison is too kind to this man. During World War II there would have been no question of a military tribunal and a death sentence.
We need to remember that Ahmed Ghailani is not an American citizen. He is not entitled to the civil rights of American citizens. He is a man who is responsible for the deaths of Americans and other innocent people working in a embassy. He is a foreign terrorist. Why in the world are we treating him with kid gloves?
My heart goes out to the families of the people who were killed in the embassy bombings. Hopefully they will see some sort of justice and closure on these events in the future.
Townhall.com posted an article by John Stossel about some of the myths involved in eating 'free-range' beef.
The article reports:
"Don't believe me? Dr. Jude Capper, an assistant professor of dairy sciences at Washington State University, has studied the data (http://tinyurl.com/36492d8).
"Capper said: "There's a perception out there that grass-fed animals are frolicking in the sunshine, kicking their heels up full of joy and pleasure. What we actually found was from the land-use basis, from the energy, from water and, particularly, based on the carbon footprints, grass-fed is far worse than corn-fed."
"How can that be?
""Simply because they have a far lower efficiency, far lower productivity. The animals take 23 months to grow. (Corn-fed cattle need only 15.) That's eight extra months of feed, of water, land use, obviously, and also an awful lot of waste. If we have a grass-fed animal, compared to a corn-fed animal, that's like adding almost one car to the road for every single animal. That's a huge increase in carbon footprints.""
The article further states:
"But what about those hormones the cows are given? Surely that cannot be good for us.
""What we have to remember is every food we eat -- whether it's tofu, whether it's beef, whether it's apples -- they all contain hormones. There's nothing, apart from salts, that doesn't have some kind of hormone in them."
"So the next time you reach for that package of beef in the grocery store tagged with all the latest grass-fed, free-range lingo, remember: Not only does it often cost twice as much, but there's no evidence it's better for the environment or better for you."
The bottom line here is simple--if eating free-range beef or chicken makes you feel better, then go to it, just don't think you are really doing anything significant for the environment or yourself. Free-range may (or may not) be kinder to the animals (I suspect that depends on the farm), but it really doesn't make a positive difference in the long run!
Today's Wall Street Journal is reporting that a deficit-reduction plan put together by a panel of Democrats, Republicans, economists and other experts is expected to be introduced today. The plan is co-authored by Democratic budget veteran Alice Rivlin and former Sen. Pete Domenici (R., N.M.),
According to the article:
"The most recent report, put together by a group called the Bipartisan Policy Center, will call for a one-year payroll-tax holiday in 2011 that it says will create between 2.5 million and 7 million jobs.
"The plan would lower income and corporate tax rates and offset them with a 6.5% national sales or "consumption" tax as well as an excise tax on sugar drinks like soda."
The national sales tax is essentially a vat (value added tax) tax, something very common in Europe.
According to the article, the plan also includes:
• Changing the formula for social-security taxes so that they are levied against 90% of all wages, compared with the current system, which caps the tax at a certain income level.
• Major cuts in discretionary spending. Both singled out a government policy that allows military retirees to collect full benefits after 20 years.
• Cuts to farm subsidies and either eliminating or limiting certain politically popular tax breaks, such as the mortgage-interest tax deduction.
There are some problems with this. To single out military retirees retirement is just ridiculous. The people who serve in our military do not live the same sort of life as the rest of us--they are forced to move their families every two to four years, they deal with long periods of being separated from their spouses, their salaries are not comparable to the civilian world, and they put their lives on the line on a regular basis. If you would like to cut someone's retirement benefits, try federal workers and government officials (including the House and Senate).
This is not a workable long-term proposal. It is a bunch of gimmicks that hopefully will help with unemployment, but only termporarily, and will not do anything about baseline budgeting or the true causes of our budget deficit.
Baseline budgeting is explained as follows at the Citizens Against Government Waste website:
"Baseline budgeting tilts the budget process in favor of increased spending and taxes. For example, if an agency's budget is projected to grow by $100 million, but only grows by $75 million, according to baseline budgeting, that agency sustained a $25 million cut. That is analogous to a person who expects to gain 100 pounds only gaining 75 pounds, and taking credit for losing 25 pounds. The federal government is the only place this absurd logic is employed."
We will never solve the deficit problem unless we are willing to acknowledge the root of the problem.
The lame-duck session of Congress is already up to mischief. The St. Petersburg Examiner reports today that the Senate is scheduled to consider the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.today.
The article describes the bill as follows:
"This is a poorly written bill that expands the authority and jurisdiction of the: Department of Health and Human Services, Food & Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control, EPA, and Homeland Security. It will make food more expensive, and make life more difficult for small farmers, food processors, and distributors."
Under the bill food facilities will be required to "identify and evaluate known or reasonably foreseeable hazards that may be associated with the facility." The problem here is the word 'foreseeable.' Farmers and businessmen are not psychic--who determines whether or not a problem was foreseeable?
According to Townhall.com:
"It will create 17,000 new bureaucrats, who's job is going to be to harass small farmers. It will create huge regulatory burdens for small family farms and even for those who want to grown their own food. This will choke out small farms. For those who like to buy their own healthy food, forget it. It will no longer be available."
This is another government power grab that needs to be stopped in its tracks or repealed when the Republicans take over the House of Representatives in January. My home garden where I grow tomatoes should not be subject to government regulation!
The Wheeling Intelligencer and News-Register reported today that after the government declared that inflation was low enough not to increase social security benefits for senior citizens, the President is suggesting a 1.4 percent pay raise for 2.1 million federal workers.
The article points out some basic facts about the government's payroll:
- Civil servants on the federal payroll earned an average of $123,049, including benefits, in 2009, according to USA Today. That same year, average compensation for workers in the private sector, including benefits, was $61,051, reports the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
- The average federal salary has increased 33 percent faster than inflation during the past decade.
- During the past five years, the number of federal employees paid $150,000 or more a year has increased by more than 1,000 percent.
- The $150,000-plus category of employees makes up 3.9 percent of the federal workforce. In 2005, it was 0.4 percent.
The article reminds us that it has been suggested that Congress should freeze the pay of federal employees, following the example of many private companies. That would be a good start in reducing the deficit.
CNS News is reporting today that the British government has agreed to pay millions of pounds (dollars) in settlements to a group of former Guantanamo Bay detainees who were suing the government for alleged complicity in their torture overseas.
The article reports:
"Britain's ITV News reported that at least 7 ex-detainees would receive payments, and claimed one man would be paid more than one million pounds (US$1.6 million). It did not cite its sources."
There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to start. First of all, the British are putting $1.6 million in the hands of terrorists. I questions the wisdom of that. Second of all, it is common knowledge that terrorists who have been captured are taught to claim mistreatment. Possibly they were mistreated, but that doesn't change the fact that they are terrorists. Is it wise to give terrorists $1.6 million in order to avoid some potentially nasty publicity? What impact does this have on the future safety of the British? Of the world?
It is sad to see the courts uphold the rights of the people who want to destroy them. It makes no sense. It is another example of how those involved in terrorism with the goal of forming a worldwide caliphate are using our governments against us to further their goals.
Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article about President Obama's not wanting to extend the 'Bush tax cuts' for the rich because it would cost too much. The President argues that with the deficit as high as it is right now, we can't afford those tax cuts. First of all, we are not talking about tax cuts for anyone--we are talking about keeping the tax rates where they are at the present time.
The article points out:
"Obama's argument that extending all of the tax relief would cost too much is too disingenuous to let stand. Of the $3.6 trillion, 10-year tax hike at issue (Obama's figures), the president proposes to prevent tax hikes representing 83 percent of the total, while saying that the other 17 percent is too expensive to forgo. If one or the other were too expensive, it would be the 83 percent in the middle-class tax relief provisions, not the 17 percent representing the balance."
I hope the Republicans stand strong on extending all of the tax rates as they are. Remember what happened when George Bush compromised with the Democrats and raised taxes on luxury items in late 1990? As luxury items stopped selling, the people making them lost their jobs. That caused a ripple in the economy that led to a minor recession. Tax policies do have an impact on the economy. The Laffer Curve shows that cutting taxes generates more government revenue; cutting taxes also encourages more economic growth. Hopefully, the 'Bush tax cuts' for everyone will be extended for everyone at least for a few years.
The members of Congress elected because of their support of Tea Party ideas has not even been sworn in yet, but they are having an impact. The Los Angeles Times is reporting today that Senator Mitch McConnell announced Monday he would support a proposal put forward by conservative Republicans to ban so-called earmark spending in the new Congress. Until today, Senator McConnell had been opposed to the ban on earmarks, saying that it would not save a significant amount of money. Technically that may be true, but when you look at the earmarks added into the healthcare bill in order to pass it, earmarks become very expensive and have a tremendous impact.
The article reports:
"McConnell's announcement came after a meeting this morning with 12 of the 13 new GOP senators in his office. His fellow Republican leaders hailed the turnaround.
""An earmark moratorium shows that elected officials are serious about restoring trust between the American people and those elected to represent them. This is a strong first step -- though only a first step -- towards making the tough choices required to get our country back on track," Ohio Rep. John Boehner, likely to be the next speaker of the House, said in a statement.
""Now that Republicans are taking real action to end wasteful spending, I hope President Obama follows through with his rhetoric and promises to veto any bill with Democrat earmarks," DeMint said."
Hopefully this is the beginning of turning off the money spigot in Washington and the dawn of a new era for the American taxpayer.
Most of us don't have our financial information reported in the New York Times, so I guess the circumstances on the events I am about to chronicle would not apply, but I do have questions as to how much of the following you or I would be allowed to get away with without seeing the inside of a jail cell.
According to Right American Word Press in October 2009:
"...The New York Times reported on September 5, 2008, that, "Representative Charles B. Rangel has earned more than $75,000 in rental income from a villa he has owned in the Dominican Republic since 1988, but never reported it on his federal or state tax returns, according to a lawyer for the congressman and documents from the resort.";
"Whereas in an article in the September 5, 2008 edition of The New York Times, his attorney confirmed that Representative Rangel's annual congressional Financial Disclosure statements failed to disclose the rental income from his resort villa;
"Whereas The New York Times reported on September 6, 2008 that, "Representative Charles B. Rangel paid no interest for more than a decade on a mortgage extended to him to buy a villa at a beachfront resort in the Dominican Republic, according to Mr. Rangel's lawyer and records from the resort. The loan, which was extended to Mr. Rangel in 1988, was originally to be paid back over seven years at a rate of 10.5 percent. But within two years, interest on the loan was waived for Mr. Rangel.";"
I understand that there are many other charges against Congressman Rangel, but it seems to me that the IRS generally takes the concept of unreported income rather seriously. The New York Times report is more than a year old.
Today, according to The Hill, after Charlie Rangel walked out of his ethics trial, the House eithics panel decided to continue the trial. According to The Hill:
"Chisam (Blake Chisam, the staff director and chief counsel for the full ethics committee) moved forward with the case after the adjudicatory committee rejected a request by Rangel to delay the trial because he lacked counsel. Rangel's team of attorneys told him they could no longer represent him in late October, and Rangel said he could not afford to hire a replacement right away after incurring almost $2 million in legal fees during the past two years.
"Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, offered a motion to continue the trial after Rangel opened his remarks by pleading for a delay and complaining about the unfairness of proceeding with the trial while he lacks counsel."
Charlie Rangel may be a dedicated public servant, but it is time for him to leave the stage. I don't know if he thought tax evasion, using rent-controlled apartments as offices, etc. were acceptable behavior or not, but I do know that many Americans are now awake and planning to hold their elected officials to some sort of ethical standard. The days of a free lunch for the political class are rapidly coming to an end.
Michelle Malkin reported yesterday that HHS Secretay Kathleen Sebelius has approved 111 Obamacare waivers for businesses, unions, and other providers of health insurance providers. The article lists some of the aspects of the waivers:
"Aetna, based in Hartford, Connecticut, was part of a first round of waivers in September for 209,423 beneficiaries in plans that don't comply with the new requirement. Oak Brook, Illinois- based McDonald's Corp., the world's largest restaurant chain, Jack in the Box Inc., based in San Diego, and the United Federation of Teachers also were among the waiver recipients.
"About 200,000 people were included in the new round of exemptions, bringing the total to almost 1.2 million people, HHS said on its website. Also on the list for exemptions are Manor Care Inc., a nursing-home company owned by Washington-based private equity firm Carlyle Group, and Universal Forest Products Inc., a lumber company based in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Spokesmen for Manor and Universal Forest didn't immediately respond to messages seeking comment.
"...Dish Network, the Englewood, Colorado-based No. 2 U.S. satellite-television provider, will be given a waiver for 3,597 employees, and Orlando, Florida-based Darden Restaurants, owner of the Olive Garden and Red Lobster chains, will get a waiver for 34,000 workers, according to the HHS list. Darden spokesman Rich Jeffers didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Dish Network spokesman Marc Lumpkin declined to comment.
"The waivers, which last for a year and can then be renewed, let workers keep coverage until new options are available in four years under the law, said Jessica Santillo, a spokeswoman for the agency."
If you look at this carefully, you realize how many people would actually lose their healthcare insurance had the waivers not been issued. The questions then becomes, "Shouldn't we take another look at this program in light of the fact that it is doing exactly the opposite of what was promised?"
Meanwhile, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), vowed Friday to introduce legislation killing a part of the new healthcare reform law that imposes new tax-filing requirements on small businesses. He wants to end the requirement that businesses report any purchases of over $600 to the IRS. He points out that this will impose undue paperwork burdens on companies amid an economic downturn when they can least afford it.
I have a better idea. Let's repeal the entire law and start over with tort reform, portability across state lines, and tax credits for individuals buying their own health insurance.
Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article about the Paycheck Fairness Act, which the Senate will be debating in the lame-duck session next week. The aim of the bill is to promote 'gender equality' in the workplace.
According to the article, opposition to the bill is based on the fact that:
"...(the bill) would try to ensure pay equity by restricting employers salary decisions, making it easier to file suit against employers believed to be engaged in sex-bases pay discrimination and requiring businesses to desclose detailed salary information to the government."
The article points out that the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act already provide protection against gender-based wage discrimination.
The article further points out that the Business Roundtable and The Business Council sent a letter to the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag in June citing the Paycheck Fairness Act as legislation that would hurt economic growth and stifle job creation. According to the article:
"[Paycheck Fairness] would open companies to potentially crippling employment litigation without adding significant benefit to workers, since current law already addresses the discrimination issue," the letter read.
"In spite of the concerns coming from the business community, women's groups, labor organizations, and even the president insist that the Paycheck Fairness Act is essential to ensure that women are treated fairly in the workplace."
If we truly want to see job growth in America, we need to get the government out of businesses. The Equal Pay Act already addresses this problem, and the fear of lawsuits will hinder any business from hiring. Business works more efficiently when owners do not have to spend a large portion of their time filling out forms for the government. We would be better off making sure we enforce the laws already on the books instead of constantly trying to create more laws.
According to The Hill's Blog Briefing Room yesterday:
"President Obama assured Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Sunday that the lame-duck session will be used to ratify the START nuclear-arms treaty.
"According to the White House pool report, Obama gave his commitment to his Russian counterpart as the two met, both lauding their friendship and relationship built up over the past two years.
""I reiterated my commitment to getting the START treaty done during the lame-duck session," Obama said at a photo op, calling passage of the treaty a "top priority" of his administration."
There are a few obvious questions to ask about this commitment. Why push the treaty through in a lame-duck session when the newly-elected Congress will be seated in six weeks? Why was the treaty not considered before the election? What is in the treaty that makes the President want to push it through in a lame-duck session?
The answers to these questions may be found in a Heritage.org article about the problems with the START treaty. The article at Heritage lists twelve flaws in the treaty.
Flaw #1: New START fails to speak to the issue of protecting and defending the U.S. and its allies against strategic attack.
Flaw #2: New START imposes restrictions on U.S. missile defense options.
Flaw #3: The atrophying U.S. nuclear arsenal and weapons enterprise make reductions in the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal even more dangerous.
Flaw #4: New START counts conventional "prompt global strike" weapons against the numerical limits imposed on nuclear arms.
Flaw #5: The Obama Administration has made New START an essential part of a broader agenda that pursues the goals of nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament concurrently.
Flaw #6: New START's limits are uninformed by a targeting policy that is governed by the protect and defend strategy.
Flaw #7: New START leaves in place a large Russian advantage in nonstrategic (tactical) nuclear weapons.
Flaw #8: New START does not appear to limit rail-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
Flaw #9: The BCC's mandate is overly broad.
Flaw #10: The New START limitations are unclear on whether they would permit the U.S. to counter future threats from a combination of states.
Flaw #11: New START is not adequately verifiable.
Flaw #12: The Obama Administration believes that Russian cheating under New START is only a marginal concern.
This is one of those articles I occasionally post that includes a lot of things I don't really understand. Having read through the Heritage Foundation's objections to the START Treaty, I am relatively sure that it would not be a good treaty for the United States. I think the benchmark for any treaty should be (in the words of Ronald Reagan), "Trust, but verify." We have no reason to believe that the world is a safe place for any nation. To sign a treaty that essentially steps away from our commitment to self-defense is not smart. Hopefully Congress will not approve this treaty.
Today's Washington Examiner reported on the sentencing of Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old Pakistani woman, to death for being a Christian. Under Pakistan's Islamic sharia law, professing Christianity is blasphemy against Islam and is punishable by death.
The article states:
"That's the unsolvable problem posed by the political, religious and cultural relativism at the heart of the PC mindset - It it logically impossible to simultaneously insist that all views, faiths, and cultures are equally valid and deserving of respect while tolerating one that insists - on pain of death - that it along must be followed by all others."
In simple terms, if all religions are the same, how is it ok for one religion to kill people for not endorsing it? The death sentence for Asia Bibi is one reason that Islam must never be allowed to infiltrate the courts of the United States. It is a reason why Oklahoma was very wise to ban the use of Sharia Law in its state courts. We need more states to do the same.
Yesterday Front Page Magazine posted an article about a Justice Department investigation into Chris Christie, current governor of New Jersey. According to Front Page Magazine:
"This month, the Justice Department's inspector general released a report purporting to show that Christie, who has built up a reputation as a spending-slashing fiscal conservative by taking on New Jersey's bloated public sector, routinely overcharged the government for hotel stays while in his former job as a U.S. Attorney. Christie exceeded the government's set rate for travel expenses on 14 of 15 trips, according to the report; on nine of those trips, his "lodging costs exceeded the government rate by more than $100 per night." These costs, which went over the government rate by between $19 and $242 a night, ultimately totaled $2,176."
These are not new charges--they were brought up and dealt with during Christie's campaign for governor. According to the article:
"...Christie parried the charges by pointing out, reasonably enough, that with just a few rooms offered at the government rate at every hotel, staying within the set government rate was not always possibility. Nevertheless, he explained that he tried to stay at a cheaper hotel whenever that was an option. Whatever view one takes of that particular controversy - and New Jersey's voters registered their opinion clearly when they voted Christie into office - there is nothing revelatory in the Justice Department's audit."
The Justice Department has become political and unjust under President Obama. They have refused to investigate the New Black Panthers voting intimidation scandal, they have sued a state for attempting to control immigration, and they are going after those who they believe are political enemies. It really is time for the new Republican House of Representatives to begin their investigations.
One of the reasons many of us get so disgusted with politicians is that sometimes they seem to be playing 'gotcha' games rather than doing their jobs. The Hill posted an article yesterday that seems to fall into that category. Under the current Senate rules, a bill can be blocked in the Senate if 41 Senators oppose it. Three Democrat congressmen are attempting to change that.
The Hill reports:
"Three Democratic proponents of changing the Senate's filibuster rules are vowing to press their case in the 112th Congress despite the GOP takeover of the House, with one senator pledging to force the issue on the very first day.
"Sens. Tom Harkin (Iowa), Mark Udall (Colo.) and Tom Udall (N.M.) all told The Hill this week they are not backing down from their effort. The Senate's rules -- which are based on tradition, not the Constitution-- have frustrated Democrats for the past several years as GOP leaders have required a 60-vote majority even for procedural motions."
This is interesting to me as it occurs just as the Republicans are gaining a few more seats in the Senate. Frankly, I think the 60-vote requirement is good. It keeps really bad legislation from being passed (except in the case of healthcare where the goalpost was moved)
The Hill also reports:
""In the past year, we didn't do a single appropriations bill. That's our main job, to fund the government, and typically at least we do defense and intelligence appropriations. We didn't even do those. And we didn't do a budget. People are concerned about the deficit right now, well, if you don't do a budget you can't address the deficit. So there is a good case to be made for rules reform.""
I totally disagree with that statement. The reason the budget did not get passed was that the Democrats running for office did not want to have to campaign on their votes. Had a good budget been proposed, it would have been supported on both sides of the aisle and the filibuster would not have been an issue. The problem in this Congress has not been the filibuster--it has been bad legislative proposals that were unpopular with the American people. Had the Democrats had better ideas, they would have been able to pass legislation easily.
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today about the effect of Obamacare on the uninsured that the program was supposed to help. According to the article, the figures are stark:
"375,000: The number of Americans with pre-existing conditions HHS said would apply for coverage in the first year of ObamaCare, one of the main political arguments for its implementation.
"8,011: The number that actually did."
The article points out:
"That comes to a success rate for that prediction of just under 2.2%. The Wall Street Journal points out that the program operates at a loss -- which means that consumers who qualify for the program in essence have partial subsidies by entering it. And yet, despite the billions of dollars committed to funding it and the efforts of 27 states to duplicate it, only eight thousand people have bothered to apply for the program."
It really is time to REPEAL AND REPLACE!!!
Fox 40 News in Sacramento, California, is reporting on a 13-year-old boy at Denair Middle School who was asked to take an American flag off of his bicycle. Cody Alicea says that he placed the flag on his bicycle to be patriotic and to honor veterans, like his own grandfather, Robert. He's had the flag on his bike for two months but Monday, was told to take it down.
According to the article:
"Cody's grandfather says the school was concerned about racial tensions or uprisings because of the flag. He feels if there was really a problem it should have been brought up two months ago, not during Veterans week."
I am sorry if the school was worried about the flag stirring up racial tensions, but it seems to me that the school should protect a student's right to fly the American flag. If the school can't guarantee the safety of a student (or the students) because someone is flying an American flag, maybe that school needs new officials.
In July The Atlantic published an article about the fact that the State of Texas seems to have avoided the economic recession that has hit the rest of the country. The article points out that Texas came into the recession in good shape because in 2008 Texas was enjoying a strong economy based on an energy boom.
According to the article:
"Real estate executives and economists struggled to find one reason why the Texas economy largely avoided the real estate boom and bust, but a few theories emerged. First, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro suggested that a reliance on property taxes in Texas (compared to California) might have dulled real estate appreciation. Second, the banks that survived the Savings and Loan crisis in the 1980s have mostly held onto conservative and un-exotic lending practices. Third, land and utilities are generally cheaper throughout Texas, which holds down the cost of the living. Fourth, besides Dallas, Texas' major cities have diversified away from the kind of real estate and financial services addiction that plagued CaliFlAriVada (that's CA, FL, AZ, NV), where the recession has been the most severe."
The article also points out that the major cities in Texas have hosted stable industries. That has generally resulted in consistent growth.
The article concludes:
"Maybe it's the lack of a state income or capital gains tax. Or the dearth of union workers. Or the plentiful labor supply on the border of Mexico, or the lower wages, or the stable and lean regulations. There's something about Texas that makes it the most popular place for business to do its business, as CEO Magazine and CNBC both found the last year. As Brooke Rollins, president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, told me: "Our research shows that the more tax incentives and less regulation you have, and the less likely businesses are to get sued, the more likely it is they'll want to come and prosper in your state.""
I would like to add one other reason why Texas has not participated in the recession. According to an American Medical News article in 2008, there was another factor. In 2003 Texans approved a state constitutional amendment limiting noneconomic damages in medical liability cases to $250,000 for physicians. Five years later, the cap is being credited for slashing liability insurance premiums, boosting the ranks of doctors in the state, and improving medical access to patients. This is the kind of healthcare reform we need!
The article at American Medical News points out:
"Texas physicians have witnessed a 25% overall drop in liability rates since 2003, the state insurance department says. For the first time, the state's largest medical liability carrier, Texas Medical Liability Trust, saw a 50% reduction in lawsuit filings, this from 2003 to 2008. Texas went from four insurers to more than 30 during that period.
"According to the Texas Medical Board, medical license applications have soared from 2,561 to 4,041 -- a 58% jump. At the same time, the number of neurosurgeons has climbed 12%, while the supply of orthopedic surgeons has risen 9%.
"The results seen in Texas, with lowered liability insurance premiums, are repeated in experiences from other states that have enacted caps of varying degrees. In February, the AMA released an analysis of independent research that showed caps on noneconomic damages are effective and have lowered premiums at least 17%, with some specialties seeing even greater drops."
This is the answer to our nations so-called 'healthcare crisis'--not more government control. When the rest of the states realize that they can prosper instead of going broke, maybe they will take a look at what has happened in Texas and learn from it.
This article is based on information from The Heritage Foundation, Investor's Business Daily, and the Wall Street Journal regarding the preliminary report released by the deficit commission.
The Heritage Foundation views the report as a starting point for the debate. Their comments included:
"Since it is a preliminary report from the chairs, it should be viewed as a model for discussion and seeding ideas for the final commission report. As such, the report tackles some of the key elements of the budget--cutting discretionary spending, cutting entitlement and other mandatory spending, and tax policy--and it suggests some small changes to the budgetary process. The co-chairs are to be commended for putting out a plan that addresses the fiscal issues confronting the nation."
Investor's.com asks the following:
"Though timid, some of the ideas floated by the co-chairmen of President Obama's "deficit commission" are praiseworthy. But is this a bait-and-switch -- to be followed by destructive new taxes?"
The Wall Street Journal posted an article by Aurthur Laffer. His suggestions for solving the deficit problem are as follows:
1. Extend the 'Bush tax cuts' forever and abolish the estate tax.
2. Repeal Obamacare--Mr. Laffer notes that Obamacare allows individuals to pay only five cents for each dollar of health care. He asks, "Who do you think pays the other 95 cents?" (The American taxpayer?)
3. The cancellation of all spending that punishes those who produce and rewards those who don't. This is the kind of thinking that has drained our treasury for years with no visible results.
4. The enactment of stalled free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. The free trade agreement with Columbia has been blocked by unions.
Mr. Laffer's suggestions for the ideal growth agenda include such ideas as a true flat tax with two rates--one on personal income and one on net business sales, passing a balanced budget amendment that would not include raising taxes, price stability, and finally, as comedian Jackie Mason puts it, "putting the politicians on commission". Holding politicians responsible for the consequences of their actions.
I am sure we will hear much more about the deficit commission in the coming days. The Political Calculations blog posted the following chart. I think we have to deal with spending before we even talk about taxes.
Thank you to all American veterans. Your sacrifices have kept us free. We salute you and your families.
The American Thinker posted an article yesterday pointing out that Indonesia, praised by President Obama for its religious tolerance, does not allow Israeli citizens to visit there. I am really sorry to hear this. I know there are other Muslims countries that have similar restrictions, and I am really sorry that the freedom-loving countries of the world have not taken a strong stand against these countries. Meanwhile, as he was praising an anti-Semitic country for its tolerance, President Obama was criticizing Israel for building in its own capital. This is definitely a "beam me up, Scotty" moment. It seems to me that until the west finds a way to support its energy needs independently of the Middle East, anti-Semitism will be accepted as the rule of the day. That is unfortunate.
Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air today about a Time Magaine article saying that if hyperinflation arrives, it will be the fault of the Tea Party. Just as a frame of reference, the federal government has raised its expenses 38% during the past three years and raised the debt ceiling accordingly. The article also fails to mention that the Federal Reserve, in an effort to keep interest rates low as the spending skyrocketed, has been printing money at an alarming rate. So how in the world would inflation be the fault of the Tea Party (which at this point has very little actual power--a situation that will change in January) ?
The problem here is not that the Tea Party will be to blame for inflation. For Time Magazine the problem is that the Tea Party espouses smaller government--a horrible concept to the mainstream media. The thing to remember as you read this sort of article is that the mainstream media is part of the status quo. The Tea Party is a major part of the opposition to the status quo. The major media would like nothing more than to discredit the Tea Party in the eyes of American voters so that we can continue down the spending road we are on. Since every American would be affected by the economic unheaval that will occur if we do not cut spending, I really don't understand why the media opposes the Tea Party.
The Hill is reporting today that the Chairmen's Mark Report of President Obama's fiscal commission has been released.
According to the article:
"The report, approved by the panel's co-chairmen, former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), proposes capping discretionary spending, instituting tax rate reductions while broadening the tax base, gradually raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 and reducing the rate of increase of Social Security benefits.
"The report is the "chairmen's mark," meaning that it is a draft that has not been approved by the 18 members of the president's commission."
The significant thing here is that the draft has not been approved by the 18 members of the president's commission.
According to the article, these are the five recommendations of the commission:
• Enact tough discretionary spending caps and provide $200 billion in domestic and defense savings by 2015.
• Pass tax reform that dramatically reduces rates, simplifies the code, broadens the base and reduces the deficit.
• Address the Medicare "doc fix" not through deficit spending but through savings from payment reforms, cost-sharing, malpractice reform and long-term measures to control healthcare cost growth.
• Achieve mandatory savings from farm subsidies and military and civil service retirement.
• Ensure Social Security solvency for the next 75 years while reducing poverty among seniors.
It will be interesting to see how the details of this report shape up. Again, I want to go on the record against the idea of means-tested Social Security. Paying into Social Security was never means tested--we were all forced to do it. Are the federal pensions of Congress (who robbed Social Security after they opted out of it) means tested? To means test Social Security is to penalize those of us who saved and reward those of us who did not. It is another way the government encourages unproductive behavior.
Let's see how many of the members of the commission sign on to the report.
The Washington Times reports today that Congressman John Boehner is not going to compromise on leaving the current tax rates in place. The article in the Washington Times refers to the current rates as Bush tax cuts, which I think gives the impression that tax cuts 'for the rich' are coming. That is simply not true. The question is whether or not to leave the current tax rates in place. The 'Bush tax cuts' will expire on January 1, and everyone's taxes will go up--childcare deductions will drop, and tax rates in various income categories will rise. To extend those tax cuts simply means that the tax rates will stay where they are.
One of the problems in our economy right now is uncertainty. Small businesses have no idea what their tax rates or costs of healthcare will be next year. They are reluctant to hire anyone until they have an idea of what their expenses will be. Making the current tax rates permanent would solve that problem. It would be better to further drop tax rates for everyone (google the 'laffer curve' and see what lower taxes does to revenue), but if Congress will not lower tax rates, it would be better to at least keep them where they currently are.
Yesterday Hot Air posted an article about the commonwealth of Pennsylvania seizing the newborn child of a mother who was guilty of eating an everything bagel before the hospital did a routine drug test. Evidently Pennsylvania routinely does drug testing on expectant mothers during prenatal doctor's visits and new mothers in the hospital. The testing can probably be justified by saying that it gives the doctors a heads-up if they are going to be dealing with the baby of someone addicted to drugs or puts them on the alert if a mother may not be a competent mother. The drug tests on this mother taken during her pregnancy had all been negative, but this was not taken into consideration after the hospital test. If you are going to take a child away from a new mother, you had better be sure your drug test is reliable. In this case it really wasn't.
The article at Hot Air reports:
"The birth of a couple's first child is supposed to be a joyous occasion -- and for the first three days, it was for Elizabeth Mort and her partner Alex Rodriguez. But then the commonwealth of Pennsylvania took their young daughter away after the hospital where she was born reported the mother for testing positive on a drug test. Her drug of choice? An "everything" bagel from Dunkin' Donuts..."
The article includes the video of the Mythbusters episode where the hosts of the show illustrate that poppy seeds will cause a positive read on a drug test. I understand the desire of state authorities to protect children, but I believe they overstepped their bounds (and their common sense) in this case.
USA Today posted an article today stating that U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a temporary restraining order Monday to block a new amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that would prohibit state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases. Let's see what this means. The state courts cannot consider international law or Islamic law when deciding cases--they must base their decisions on the Constitution and on state law. Why in the world is that a problem?
The Council on American-Islamic relations brought a lawsuit against the law. According to the article:
""My constitutional rights are being violated through the condemnation of my faith," said Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. "Islam was the target of this amendment. This amendment does not have a secular purpose.""
The amendment most certainly does have a secular purpose--it is to make sure that court cases are settled on the basis of American law. The measure, State Question 755, was approved with 70% of the vote--don't the voters in Oklahoma have rights?
The article also points out:
"Among other things, Awad's lawsuit alleges the measure transforms Oklahoma's Constitution into "an enduring condemnation" of Islam by singling it out and barring courts from referring to Islamic law. It also alleges it violates the First Amendment's prohibition against laws regarding the establishment of religion."
Maybe I'm looking at this backwards, but it seems to me that the law prevents the establishment of religion as law. The First Amendment prevents the government from establishing a government religion. To allow Sharia Law to be used in court is to allow religious law to trump American laws. That is is unconstitutional. Hopefully this restraining order will be overturned. I don't want to live in a country where women can't work, drive cars, or go out without a male relative with them. I can't imagine what this judge is thinking. Her rights are at risk also.
The Hill reported yesterday that two Senators, Tom Carper (D-Del.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio), have written a letter to the chairmen of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform advocating for a 25-cent per gallon tax increase. They want the increase to be implemented over a three-year period. The Senators want 10 cents of the tax increase to go to deficit reduction and 15 cents to go to funding transportation infrastructure improvements.
The letter was addressed to Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), co-chairmen of the fiscal commission, which is due to submit its recommendations to Obama by Dec. 1.
There is so much wrong with this suggestion I don't know where to start. The first thing to keep in mind is that Congress is not impacted by increases in the cost of gasoline--they do not directly pay for their gasoline--it comes out of a spending account (which I am sure they can increase if need be). This is another case of Congress discussing the passage of a law that will negatively impact all Americans except Congress. It will also have a very negative impact on the economy. I predicted $4 a gallon gasoline very soon without this tax, with this tax it will come much sooner.
I don't envy the members of the fiscal commission that is supposed to make recommendations on the deficit. Many of the members of the commission are people who believe higher taxes are the answer to everything--not lower spending. They are about to meet the Tea Party.
As most Americans are being forced to cut their budgets to make ends meet, it's time for the government to do the same. I don't want to hear about cutting the programs that Congress knows will get the most reaction; I want to hear about cutting waste. During the past two years as business has been losing jobs, government has been gaining them. It's time for that to change. Just for the record--I am against a means test for Social Security. No one means tested every American when the government took their money for Social Security. No one means tested Congress as they stole the money from Social Security from 1965 on (after they opted out of the program). It is time for change in Washington, and I hope the new Congress realizes that.
The election was last week, but the funny business continues. According to a National Review article posted yesterday, someone is trying to impact the counting of absentee ballots in New Yorks 25th Congressional District.
National Review quotes the following:
"Statement From Ann Marie Buerkle On Absenteee Ballots
"Syracuse, NY - "It has recently come to my attention that there are efforts underway in Upstate New York to contact individuals who cast absentee ballots in the 25th Congressional District and inquire how they may have voted in the recent election. It is regrettable that this action is underway prior to those absentee votes being tabulated by county election officials. While the reasons for this effort are unclear, many agree it could be an attempt by some to identify who each person voted for in an effort to disqualify certain eligible ballots from being counted. I would like the public to know that my campaign is not connected to this current effort. Further, no American - in Upstate New York or anywhere - is in anyway under obligation to provide information to anyone on how he or she voted in any election, including my own.""
"...The counting of the absentee ballots will be staggered over the next two weeks. Not surprisingly, the Maffei campaign has already filed legal proceedings against the four county boards of elections claiming voting irregularities. The objective is to delay and obstruct the process in order to disenfranchise voters who voted for Ann Marie.
"We are currently trying to raise money for the anticipated recount."
Have we reached a point where our elections results will be determined by lawyers and not voters?
On November 5, a website called MassResistance posted their analysis of why Republicans in Massachusetts lost at the polls last week. The theory expressed is that the Republicans ran most of the campaigns in a way not to offend anyone.
The article points out:
"In April 2009 the Boston homosexual newspaper Bay Windows featured a front-page interview with newly elected Massachusetts Republican Party Chairman Jennifer Nassour. She told Bay Windows that the Party will no longer oppose same-sex "marriage", abortion, or other divisive "social issues.""
The article cites a quote from a past election:
"As columnist Jeff Jacoby once observed (regarding Mitt Romney's 1994 Senate race against Ted Kennedy), if people are given the choice of a watered-down liberal and a real liberal, they will choose the real thing every time. What he might have added is that when the Republican Party caves in to more and more liberal mush, its rank and file starts to lose their zeal and enthusiasm, and it affects campaigns."
I partially agree with the article, but I think there were exceptions to the watered-down profiles that were offered to the voters--the problem was that they were not at the top of the ballot, so people probably did not bother to split their vote to support them.
I don't know if Massachusetts Republicans will learn from their mistakes or not. Part of the problem is that many of the Massachusetts Republicans are not conservative and can't be expected to take conservative stands. I am not sure what it will take for that to change.
WLS AM in Chicago is reporting that even though Republican Mark Kirk has been elected to the United States Senate, he won't be seated in time for the beginning of the lame duck session. There were three Senators who were elected to fill vacant seats in the Senate. They were expected to take their seats in time for the lame duck session which will begin on November 15. Well, oddly enough the two Democrats that won will be taking their seats immediately, but Illinois can't get the paperwork done on Mark Kirk to get him to the Senate before December. This is the kind of shenanigans that angered the voters in the first place. This is what those of us who live in Massachusetts watched with the election of Scott Brown. Even though he won the election, the Democrats tried to keep him out of the Senate for as long as possible. It would be nice if the Democrats would seat people when they are supposed to be seated instead of being sore losers and playing games with the electoral process. This makes me wonder what mischief the Democrats have planned for Congress in the last two weeks of November.
One of the problems with the disclosure of the emails regarding climate change that were exposed this year is that they encouraged those of us who believe that global warming is faulty science to speak louder. As I look outside at the snow on the ground today--snow on November 8--my skepticism is reinforced! It is also reinforced by the fact that the emails showed that a significant period of global warming during the Middle Ages was left out of the data because it interfered with the desired conclusion. Somehow, I just can't picture the Lord of the Manor in the Middle Ages driving around in his SUV. I don't claim to be a scientist, but I suspect climate change is a basic part of the history of earth--before and after the industrial revolution. Well, as the science of global warming becomes more suspect, those poised to make a lot of money because of global warming are having their hopes dashed.
Yesterday the National Review Online reported that the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced on Oct. 21 that it will be ending carbon trading - the only purpose for which it was founded - this year.
According to the article:
"The CCX seemed to have a lock on success. Not only was a young Barack Obama a board member of the Joyce Foundation that funded the fledgling CCX, but over the years it attracted such big name climate investors as Goldman Sachs and Al Gore's Generation Investment Management."
Many of our leading Congressmen have investments in CCX. The article points out:
"CCX's panicked original investors bailed out this spring, unloading the dog and its across-the-pond cousin, the European Climate Exchange (ECX), for $600 million to the New York Stock Exchange-traded Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) - an electronic futures and derivatives platform based in Atlanta and London. (Luckier than the CCX, the ECX continues to exist thanks to the mandatory carbon caps of the Kyoto Protocol.)
"The ECX may soon follow the CCX into oblivion, however - the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. No new international treaty is anywhere in sight."
Does it bother anyone else that the people who will make millions from the implementation of carbon restrictions are the same people who are supporting the legislation?
Meanwhile, on Friday Breitbart.com reported:
"A top UN panel on Friday called for increased taxes on carbon emissions and international transport to raise 100 billion dollars a year to combat climate change.
"The group led by the prime ministers of Norway and Ethiopia also said there could be a tax on international financial transactions."
It really is about the money--not the climate.
Yesterday's Washington Examiner posted an editorial about the decisions that now have to be made regarding Republican leadership in the Senate. Yesterday I posted an article about the Republican Conference Chairman, which will be either Michele Bachmann or Jeb Hensarling. Michelle Bachmann represents the Tea Party, which some Republicans do not wholly accept, and Jeb Hensarling represents more of the standard Republican mold.
Now John Boehner has to back someone as the new Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. The Washingon Examiner points out:
"It would be a horrible mistake to give the nod to either Rep. Jerry Lewis of California or Rep. Hal Rogers of Kentucky. Lewis and Rogers are both Old Bull Republicans who love earmarks and pork barrel politics. Apppointing either would split the House GOP caucus and spark a revolt among conservatives who have been fighting earmarks for years. Most if not all of the freshman would join the revolt, with dire consequences for the GOP. The next two Republicans in line are C.W. Young of Florida, another earmark-loving Old Bull who would be a disaster as chairman, and Frank Wolf of Virginia, whose undoubted experience and skills would be better utilized elsewhere, especially on homeland security issues."
The battle here is totally understandable and was totally predictable. The historic gains made in the House of Representatives by the Republicans were not the result of people loving Republicans--they were the result of people opposing the rapid increase in government spending. The historic gains need to be followed by a new way of doing businesss in the House. The Washington Examiner recommends Representative Jack Kingston of Georgia for head of the Appropriations Committee. Representative Kingston has asked for earmark reform for years and has the experience to know how to run the committee well. He would be a good choice, although he is not technically the next person in line for the position.
The Washington Examiner reminds us:
"To be sure, the federal budget won't be balanced simply by banning earmarks. But just as it is impossible to be a little bit pregnant, House Republicans cannot be against most earmarks but for some of them, which has been the position of Boehner and Kingston."
These are the decisions that will determine the economic health of the country and also the election results of 2012. Keep in mind that the campaigns for the House, the Senate, and the Presidency have already begun.
Today The Hill is reporting on the race for GOP Conference Chair as the Republicans prepare to take control of the House of Representatives. Representatives Jeb Hensarling and Michele Bachmann are competing for the position.
The problem here is one that is going to become increasingly more common in the immediate future. Michele Bachmann is more closely associated with the Tea Party. She has spoken out very publicly for the Tea Party. She is the person who would be considered the "Tea Party" candidate. Jeb Hensarling is someone who is 'in line for the position.' This is what always gets the Republicans in trouble. This is the reason John McCain ran for President instead of Mitt Romney.
The question is very simple. The energy in the Republican Party in this election came from the Tea Party. Whether the old guard Republicans like it or not, that is a fact. They have a choice. They can acknowledge the heavy lifting done by the Tea Party or they can pretend that they took the majority because of their own popularity. If they choose the second option, there will be a third party--it will be the Republican party. The energy right now is with the Tea Party. To ignore that fact is on a par with President Obama saying he lost the House of Representatives due to communications problems. There were no communication problems--the American people saw exactly what he was doing and they didn't like it. If the Republicans in Congress choose to ignore the contributions of the Tea Party, they too run the risk of becoming irrelevant.
Today's New York Post is reporting that Bertha Lewis, CEO of the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN), has sent out a statement that the group is filing for bankruptcy. Ms. Lewis claims that a "right-wing media blitz" is responsible for ACORN's troubles. Wow. Who knew there was such a thing as a right-wing media blitz? I'm not even totally convinced that there is a right-wing media,
The article in the Post points out that the Congress that cut off the funding for ACORN was controlled by Democrats--not Republicans. The Post also points out that the money was later restored to ACORN.
According to the article:
""[Over] the next week or so we should see a dozen or more organizations launched on the state level by staff who used to work for ACORN and leaders who developed their skills as ACORN members," ACORN strategist Nathan Henderson-James wrote in February."
""These are not just simple name changes, but re-imaginings of how best to organize low and moderate income constitiuencies [sic] without any of the lelgal problems and funding issues dogging ACORN, not to mention the brand damage.""
May I have the honor of translating what has just happened. The House of Representatives controls the spending bills. The Republicans just took over the House of Representatives. There goes the gravy train for ACORN. ACORN doesn't want to pay all the bills it ran up as ACORN, so they will declare bankruptcy and continue with a new name. They can manage on a lower budget until the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives again (and they can help the Democrats win control by registering Mickey Mouse to vote in Orlando and the Dallas Cowboys starting lineup to vote in Las Vegas).
Every President has a library. Jimmy Carter has one in Georgia; Bill Clinton has one in Arkansas. It's part of the whole presidential thing. Presidential libraries also have historic value--sometimes events become clearer as time passes. Well, some of the United Methodists are having serious problems with the fact that George W. Bush is planning a library at Southern Methodist University.
Front Page Magazine reports:
"I hope that a bullhorn will not become the symbol for the entry of the United States into an unjustified war and that a pistol of Saddam Hussein's is not seen as some strange symbol of victory in that horrendous misjudgment," harrumphed anti-Bush United Methodist theologian Tex Sample to The New York Times. "That these should be the symbols of the values and commitments of the Bush administration and should now become the face of Southern Methodist University is cause for alarm."
I guess Mr. Sample has forgotten how devastated many of us felt after the events of September 11. The people working at the World Trade Center site were digging in ruins where their friends and colleagues had been killed and in many cases buried alive. The inspiration provided by the bullhorn in question was needed and appropriate.
The article further reports:
""It's the approach they've taken all along; it fits their worldview," explained leading Bush library critic and SMU professor emeritus William K. McElvaney, who is an ordained United Methodist whom The New York Times also quoted. "It's a tragedy for SMU to hitch its star to this." Evidently McElvaney has promised there will be demonstrations at the library's groundbreaking this month. With the Rev. Sample and other left-leaning United Methodists, he unsuccessfully tried to persuade SMU's board and the denomination's bishops to halt the library. More temperate minds understood that whatever controversies surrounded the Bush years, the library's archives would be a boon to SMU scholarship. George W. Bush, who's wife Laura attended SMU and sits on SMU's board, is himself a United Methodist. The pastor of his Dallas church also sits on the SMU board and has outspokenly defended the library."
Good grief. What a sad commentary on the politicization of everything in some circles in America that a presidential library cannot be built without someone getting their dander up. I am sorry that those opposing this library are so against the military. Have they not figured out yet that the military is what defends their right to practice their religion?
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported yesterday that President Obama, moving toward the political center after the recent election, has expressed an interest in expanding drilling for natural gas. He has also implicitly backed a process called hydraulic fracturing to access large deposits in Pennsylvania and Texas, among other places. Chris Tucker, spokesman for Energy in Depth, a drilling industry group formed to fight off federal regulation of shale gas drilling, stated that he was surprised by the change of direction.
Mr. Morrissey comments:
"Yes, well, don't be terribly surprised. The key to this change in direction is in that last paragraph -- Pennsylvania. Democrats just lost control of that state on Tuesday, along with Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida. There's a term for a Democratic presidential nominee who loses Pennsylvania and doesn't get the other three states in return: loser."
Mr. Morrissey also reports:
"Coal producers expressed disappointment that Obama failed to mention their industries in his remarks, but that may not be long in coming, either. Joe Manchin nearly lost an election he should have won by 30 points in large measure because of Obama's war on coal. Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana have fingers in the coal industry; Wisconsin doesn't produce coal, but they use a lot of it, and so does Michigan. If Obama wants to reconnect to voters in states he has to win in 2012, expect at least a temporary truce in the coal war, too."
It would be truly ironic if the political necessity that caused this change of direction wound up reviving the economy. However, the thing to be aware of here is that President Obama's apparent change in offshore drilling policy in last spring (see rightwinggranny.com) was not what it appeared to be. It will be interesting to see if the President follows through on this 'interest' in drilling for natural gas or only keeps the issue alive long enough to win him the votes he needs.
Yesterday Boston.com reported:
"Federal officials have arrested dozens of alleged illegal immigrants connected to a flight school in Stow, including the school's owner and students who received US government clearance to train as pilots despite strict security controls put into place after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks."
It is a good thing that the illegal immigrants were arrested; however, according to the article:
"All the arrested immigrants, who were learning to fly small single-engine planes, are free pending deportation hearings in federal immigration court, immigration officials said."
This is amazing. How many of these arrested immigrants do you think will show up for their pending deportation hearings in federal immigration court?
One of the people arrested was the owner of the school, Thiago DeJesus, a 26-year-old Brazilian immigrant who holds a license to fly single-engine airplanes. Mr. DeJesus was charged in July with being in the United States illegally. He is not only still here--he has gone into business! Now just for the record (and with no idea what Mr. De Jesus's political or terrorism tendencies are), this is obviously an entrepreneurial young man. He is the person we need in this country right now. What is wrong with our immigration system that he is not allowed to be here legally?
Meanwhile, Mr. DeJesus was continuing to give flying lessons this week??!!!
According to the article:
"FAA spokeswoman Laura J. Brown confirmed that DeJesus is a licensed pilot and flight instructor but would not comment on the fact that his school is still open because the agency is investigating what she called safety issues in connection with the school. She declined to elaborate."
Please follow the link above to read the entire story. It gets more unbelievable as you read it.
On November 3rd, I posted an article (rightwinggranny.com) about the Republicans already requesting that the Obama Administration not shred documents as they prepare for the transition to a Republican House of Representatives. Yesterday, Power Line posted an article commenting on the coming investigations.
Paul Mirengoff at Power Line comments that, "In my opinion, the public elected a Republican Congress for the purpose of repealing Democratic legislative excesses, preventing new overreaching legislation, and bringing spending under control. It did not elect a Republican Congress to persecute the executive branch."
Mr. Mirengoff lists the investigations he believes are important to the political health of the country:
The handling of the New Black Panthers voting intimidation case--the Justice Department needs to understand that Congress will not tolerate a double standard of enforcement in Civil Rights Laws.
The appointment of approximately 32 'czars'--the President has placed people in top positions in his administration without the benefit of Senate confirmation. The confirmation process is there for a reason, President Obama should respect it.
The firing of Gerald Walpin, the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service. This is a little more significant than an ordinary firing.
The article explains:
"At first glance, the removal of, Gerald Walpin, the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service, may seem insufficiently consequential to justify a backward looking investigation. However, as Stanley Kurtz points out in Radical-in-Chief, Obama included $1.4 billion in the 2011 budget to create a force of government-funded community organizers. His aim is to boost his political program while creating an army of young adherents in the process. The firing of Walpin appears to have an attempt to clear the way for this form of abuse. In this context, it is worthy of investigation by the House."
We don't need a witch hunt. However, we do need an honest investigation and oversight into those things that have been done by Congress and the Obama Administration that were not Constitutional.
Today the Washington Examiner is reporting on the latest unintended consequence of Obamacare. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) was one of the strongest supporters of the healthcare reform bill. They spent millions of dollars to promote the bill. They were part of the group of supporters of the bill that repeatedly stated, "health insurance costs will not go up if Obamacare is passed and that people who like their current coverage would be able to keep that coverage." Well, that was then; this is now.
According to the article at the Washington Examiner:
"Now along comes AARP announcing an eight to thirteen percent hike in its health insurance policy premiums charged to more than 4,500 employees, retirees and dependents. And that's likely only the first of more such increases to come. There are also "adjustments" coming in the AARP plan's required co-payments and deductibles."
The bottom line here is that all of us were lied to about Obamacare. Some of the liars knew they were lying, some did not. At any rate, now that the truth is rapidly becoming apparent, the only honorable thing to do is for Congress (and the President) to apologize to the American people for their lying and repeal the bill. I am sure that will happen right after pigs fly.
Yesterday's Washington Examiner reported on some of the results of George Soros' involvement in our elections in recent years. In 2006 George Soros funded the Secretary of State Project, a liberal activist group whose goal was to put Democrat Secretaries of State in place to help Democrats win elections. Their most visible success was the Minnesota Senate recount where a victory for Norm Coleman eventually became a victory for Al Franken. Recent news stories have reported that a large number of the ballots counted came from convicted felons.
The Washington Examiner reported that in Tuesday's election Republicans won 17 of 26 of the races for Secretary of State--defeating six incumbent Democrats. There are now 25 Republican Secretaries of State and 22 Democrat Secretaries of State.
Another of George Soros' recent projects was trying to change the redistricting in California that will be done in response to the census from the non-partisan group that is in charge of drawing up districts to the control of the state legislature. The measure failed and the redistricting will remain in the hands of a Citizens Redistricting Commission.
It is to the credit of the American voter that both of these efforts to control our electoral process have been stopped.
Yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported on the tax breaks which General Motors will be receiving from the federal government. As the majority of Democrats make statements about ending what they call "corporate welfare", they seem to be willing to extend unbelievable tax breaks to General Motors.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
"GM, which plans to begin promoting its relisting on the stock exchange to investors this week, wiped out billions of dollars in debt, laid off thousands of employees and jettisoned money-losing brands during its U.S.-funded reorganization last year.
"Now it turns out, according to documents filed with federal regulators, the revamping left the car maker with another boost as it prepares to return to the stock market. It won't have to pay $45.4 billion in taxes on future profits.
"The tax benefit stems from so-called tax-loss carry-forwards and other provisions, which allow companies to use losses in prior years and costs related to pensions and other expenses to shield profits from U.S. taxes for up to 20 years. In GM's case, the losses stem from years prior to when GM entered bankruptcy."
This is the kind of government favoritism that causes all Americans to lose faith in the basic honesty of their leaders. As the article notes, this tax break is occurring just as General Motors is ready to release its Initial Public Offering (IPO) of stocks. The stock sale needs to go well so that the Obama Administration can say that bailing out General Motors was a good thing.
Yesterday The Hill's Blog Briefing Room posted an article about a statement by Representative Chaka Fattah (Pa.) who has said that he will introduce a measure that would "disavow" the impeachment of former President Clinton.
According to the article:
"Rep. Chaka Fattah (Pa.) said that the resolution is necessary so that Democrats and Republicans can work together in a bipartisan fashion.
""As we enter a period in which bipartisanship will be a major priority for the Congress, it is vital that we disavow the most highly partisan example of the politics of personal destruction in the recent history of this House," Fattah said in a statement."
Oh yeah. I remember working together. On January 24, 2009, Politico reported:
I don't mean to be difficult (although there are some people in my life who would argue with that statement), but if the 2008 election had consequences, then the 2010 election should also have consequences.
The article at The Hill states:
Why is this man wasting our time with this?"Fattah said he is introducing the resolution on Nov. 15, the first day of the lame-duck session, noting that Clinton's impeachment took place during the December 1998 lame-duck session.
Republicans have already said they do not plan to impeach President Obama when they take power next year."
Yahoo News reported yesterday that San Francisco has passed a law putting nutritional requirements on Happy Meals.
According to the article:
"The law, like an ordinance passed earlier this year in nearby Santa Clara County, would require that restaurant kids' meals meet certain nutritional standards before they could be sold with toys."
This law was passed in the same state that tried to legalize marijuana.
According to the government:
"The Center for Science in the Public Interest this summer threatened to sue McDonald's if it did not stop using Happy Meal toys to lure children into its restaurants. A lawyer for that group said it is on track to file the lawsuit in the next several weeks.
"McDonald's debuted the Happy Meal in the United States in 1979 with toys like the "McDoodler" stencil and the "McWrist" wallet. Modern offerings have included themed items from popular films like "Shrek" or sought-after toys like Transformers, Legos or miniature Ty Beanie Babies."
First of all, parents are responsible for what their children eat. No one is forcing parents to take their children to McDonald's. If the parents are not capable of telling their children 'no', the problem is greater than where they are eating. It is not up to the government to control our diets. I understand that obesity is a problem with our children. I believe that diet is part of that problem (along with taking recess out of schools and children staying inside playing video games), but the problem is also related to some of the ingredients found in our food that were not there in previous generations--high fructose corn syrup for instance.
It is just amazing to me that the same people who want to legalize marijuana (which has been proved harmful to brain activity) want to ban Happy Meals. Happy meals may not be the best choice for parents, but it is the parents' choice. The government does not have the right to interfere with the free market and override parents' food choices.
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal reported that voters in Denver rejected Ballot Initiative 300, which would have set up an Extraterrestrial Affairs Commission, stocked with Ph.D. scientists, to "ensure the health, safety and cultural awareness of Denver residents" when it comes to future contact "with extraterrestrial intelligent beings or their vehicles."
When you listen to some of the statements made by the people supporting this, you really do wonder what the people who began the initiative were thinking. The campaign to pass the initiative was run by Jeff Peckham.
The article reports:
""It took, what, 18 years for health-care reform to happen," Mr. Peckham said. "And how many years for women to get the vote? So some big things take a while to get going."
"Supporters of the measure that argued that it would position Denver as the Roswell of the Rockies and attract sci-fi and space-related business and tourism.
""Look at your Star Trek conventions! How many people go to those?" agreed Veronica Barela, a supporter of the initiative and a leader in Denver's Latino community."
This was definitely a unique way to try to attract business to the community!
Today The Hill posted an article stating that:
"Republicans are likely to urge the Obama administration not to shred documents as they transition to the House majority."
That is a very interesting statement. The article points out that now that the Republicans are in the majority in the House of Representatives, Republicans next year will enjoy subpoena power. There are some things I would like to investigated, but I hope Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who will become chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, will choose his battles carefully. I suspect he will, but I also suspect every obstacle to finding the truth will be thrown in his path.
There is a great need for sunlight to be shown on some of the actions of Congress and the Presidency during the past two years.
Today's Wall Street Journal posted an opinion piece by Jim DeMint commenting on yesterday's election results and what needs to happen next. Jim DeMint has served in the Senate since 2005 and has a very clear picture of the struggle within the Republican party between the 'old guard' and the Tea Party. The Tea Party is not interested in being a quiet part of the Republican Party. They are not even interested in being associated solely with the Republican Party. I suspect they would support Democrats who agreed with their principles--there just haven't been very many.
Senator DeMint points out:
"Many of the people who will be welcoming the new class of Senate conservatives to Washington never wanted you here in the first place. The establishment is much more likely to try to buy off your votes than to buy into your limited-government philosophy. Consider what former GOP senator-turned-lobbyist Trent Lott told the Washington Post earlier this year: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.""
Unfortunately that statement is a fact of life.
Senator DeMint has a few suggestions for the new Republicans:
-
Don't request earmarks
-
Hire conservative staff
-
Beware of committee assignments used as bribes
-
Don't seek titles
-
Keep your priorities straight--doing your job correctly is more important than your reelection.
This is good advice from a man who has walked this road and learned how to navigate it.
Senator DeMint ends his article with these words of wisdom:
"Tea party Republicans were elected to go to Washington and save the country--not be co-opted by the club. So put on your boxing gloves. The fight begins today."
Well said.
The supporters of Marty Lamb for Congress gathered last night at J J's Sports Bar & Grille. It was a rather quiet crowd once the results started coming in. The final vote tally according to Boston.com was Jim McGovern 56%, Marty Lamb 39%, and Patrick Barron 4%. It was also very disappointing that the final tally on District 4 was Barney Frank 54% and Sean Bielat 43%. Across the country the Republicans picked up 60 seats in the House of Representatives, but the Republican (Tea Party) revolution did not impact Massachusetts--Governor Patrick was reelected with 49% of the vote and the state offices went Democrat.
The Republican revolution also did not impact the United States Senate--the Republicans picked up a few seats with candidates who will fight excessive spending--Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, and Ron Johnson, but did not take control. I was truly sorry to see Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer reelected.
One of the big disappointments of the night was the election of Jerry Brown as Governor of California. I can't imagine what those voters were thinking.
I am disappointed with the Massachusetts results and with the fact that the Senate remains in Democrat hands. However, this is only the beginning. Some good candidates won last night who will bring sanity to Washington in the area of spending. That is a really good thing. The other thing I expect because of the new Republican House majority is that the Obama Administration will be held accountable for some of its end runs around the Constitution. I don't want to see thousands of investigations by House Committees, but there do need to be a few things looked into--the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case, the legality of Cap and Trade being instituted through the Environmental Protection Agency, the politicalization of the Justice Department in dealing with Inspectors General, the constitutionality of czars (and what it is that they do), and the progress of the ethics committee report on Charlie Rangel--just to name a few.
I don't know what the lame-duck session of Congress will look like. Hold on to your hat, it may be really full of tax increases and more government regulation. However, those of us who support less government and lower taxes now have our foot in the door. I had hoped to have the door all the way open, but a foot in the door is a good start. Now we just have to use our power carefully to drive the car out of the ditch instead of further into it. Sometimes Reverse is needed instead of Drive!
Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported that Delaware cable television station forgot to run the closing video candidate Christine O'Donnell had made for her campaign.
According to Mr. Morrissey:
"Just to be sure that it went off without a hitch, the campaign also reminded the station to run the program. Even after that, the cable channel "forgot" to run the show ... twice:"
The article at Hot Air details the chain of events:
She told supporters at a Tea Party Express rally on Sunday in Wilmington to watch that night at 11:30. "Tell everyone to tune in," she said at the rally.
"1 minute until the premiere of our 30 minute feature. Tune in to meet all the heart warming people I've met on the campaign trail. Ch. 28," O'Donnell tweeted Sunday night.
But the ad never aired.
A few minutes later, O'Donnell tweeted: "Okay... this is NOT our show! Must be a programming mix up. We will get back to you..."
The source, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive campaign operations, said the station "forgot to air it."
Then on Monday morning, O'Donnell's campaign issued a press release saying the ad would air on Channel 28 at 10 a.m. The candidate tweeted: "The Inspiring TV show about Delawareans will air at 10 am and 3 pm today on Channel 28. Please watch this before you vote."
And again, it did not air.
"This isn't our show either! We are told channel 28 'forgot' to air it...both times... even though we paid for the time slot last week," O'Donnell tweeted shortly after 10 a.m.
This may simply be an unfortunate incident, but considering the way Christine O'Donnell has been treated by the media, the Democrats, and the Republicans, it appears to be part of a continuing pattern of behavior. I don't understand why this woman is considered such a threat to someone or something, but the way she has been treated makes me think she might really be a breath of fresh air in Washington.
Fox News reported Saturday that the Obama Justice Department is "sending a small pack of election observers to Arizona as Hispanic groups sound the alarm over an anti-illegal immigration group's mass e-mail seeking to recruit Election Day volunteers to help block illegal immigrants from voting."
Wait a minute. The Justice Department is sending observers because someone sent out a mailing recruiting volunteers to help block illegal immigrants from voting. The Justice Deparment isn't going there to prevent illegals from voting--they are going there because someone else is attempting to prevent illegals from voting. As usual, the Obama Justice Department is on the wrong side of the voting issue (Remember the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia?).
The article reports:
"Part of the concern for voter fraud monitors is a result of a ruling this week by a federal appeals court that stripped the state of its ability to request proof of citizenship when residents register to vote. State officials say the ruling could increase the likelihood of voter fraud but not in next week's midterms because the deadline for registration passed before the decision.
"At Arizona polls, voters must show one piece of identification that includes their name, address and photograph, such as a driver's license. They also can provide two forms of ID with their names and address, such as a utility bill or bank statement. Voters can also provide one form a acceptable photo ID with another form of non-photo ID that includes their name and address, such as a passport and a utility bill."
I don't want to make it difficult for any American to vote. However, I want to make sure that every person who casts a vote in America is a legal voter. I am sorry that those in the Obama Justice Department do not seem to feel the same way.
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted a story yesterday about the accidental recording of a conversation between reporters at the KTVA (CBS affiliate in Anchorage, Alaska) discussing how to sink the Joe Miller campaign for U. S. Senate. Evidently a person in the newsroom left a voice mail for the Joe Miller campaign and did not properly hang up the telephone.
A transcript of the conversation is posted at Hot Air. Essentially, the newspeople were going to search the crowd at a Joe Miller rally to look for a child molester or a registered sex offender and then feature that person as a typical Joe Miller supporter. They also toyed with the idea of creating some sort of chaos they could put on twitter to use against the candidate.
I don't know how smart the average American voter is, but I hope we are smart enough to know stupid campaign tricks by the media when we see them. Notice that the newsroom is not having a discussion of any political issues or state issues involved in this campaign. Does anyone care what the candidates want to do after they are elected? Have we become so stupid that we just accept a party line without thinking about the implications of electing a person from that party? I don't know. I do think it is scary to see the media trying to stir up trouble for one candidate instead of providing honest information on the issues involved in the election. I don't know how I could trust any election reporting by this news group after reading the transcript of this conversation.
The United Nations was established on October 24, 1945. According to their web page, this is their purpose:
"The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights. Due to its unique international character, and the powers vested in its founding Charter, the Organization can take action on a wide range of issues, and provide a forum for its 192 Member States to express their views, through the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and other bodies and committees."
It is a great concept, but as often happens with organizations, people whose intentions were less than honorable have found ways to gain more control than they have earned and to misuse that power. A recent case in point is what has happened as a result of President Obama's decision to join the Human Rights Council in May of last year. President Bush had refused to join the Council because he felt that the members on the Council were not countries who supported human rights.
Well, yesterday Breitbart.com reported:
"The 12-day session of the 47 member council starting on Monday will include regular "universal periodic reviews" of 16 members of the United Nations, including the United States on November 5.
"Several dozen non governmental organisation are expected to lobby the debate on the US human rights record, while Washington will also defend its record.
"Some 300 US civil liberties and community groups in the US Human Rights Network on Monday called on the Obama administration to bring "substandard human rights practices" in the United States into line with international standards."
Knowing that some of the members of the UN Human Rights Council (who will be doing the investigation) are Bahrain, Bangladesh, China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia, I would like to inquire as to what 'international standards' on human rights are according to those nations.
Just to illustrate how ridiculous this is, Stuff.co.nz reported today:
"Saudi Arabia's top government-sanctioned board of senior Islamic clerics has endorsed a fatwa that calls for a ban on female vendors because it violates the kingdom's strict segregation of the sexes."
I'm not even going to talk about Cuba and China and their human rights records.
George Bush was right. George Bush was not a perfect President, but he understood that the United Nations has morphed into an organization where many of its members are tyrannical dictators who have attempted to use the organization as a club to bash those members who support freedom and democracy. It's time for the United Nations to morph into an organization that is no longer headquartered in New York City and fades slowly into the sunset because it has forgotten its original purpose.
