Townhall.com is reporting today on the recent changes that have occurred in the natural gas market.  Because major sources of natural gas are being discovered in America, the price of natural gas is at a seven-year low.  Natural gas burns cleaner than coal and can be used to generate electricity and eventually to power cars.

Although natural gas is a carbon-based fuel, it is a clean fuel that is in abundant supply in America.  The article points out:

“Today, about 27 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions come from coal-fired power plants, which generate 44 percent of the electricity used in the U.S. Just under 25 percent of power comes from burning natural gas, more than double its share a decade ago but still with room to grow.”

In the past, the problem with natural gas was that the supply was uncertain and caused the price to vary a great deal. 

Last Monday,  Exxon Mobil Corporation announced a $30 billion deal to acquire XTO Energy Inc.  This will make Exxon the country’s largest producer of natural gas.

Natural gas is low cost, low carbon emissions, and abundant in America.  This could seriously change the world energy picture and world politics.

Yesterday the Senate Republican’s Website posted a list of some of the provisions that have recently appeared in the healthcare bill currently being debated.  They list the financial benefits given to specific states.

Among the items listed–a special deal for Florida residents so that the Senior Citizens in that state will continue to have access to the popular Medicare Advantage Program (this program will not be available for senior citizens in other states).  A special deal for Nebraska that will have the other fifty-one states paying Nebraska’s part of the increase in state expenses if this bill passes.  There are a number of other states listed with special deals.

Please take the time to follow the link and read the list.  It is written in legalese, but the pattern is rather obvious.  This bill does not fix healthcare.  The bill is a government takeover of healthcare that will hurt all Americans if it is passed.

The right to vote is one of the foundations of our democracy.  Faith in the integrity of the electoral process is important.  There were some problems in the last presidential election with voter fraud, but I don’t think it affected the outcome of the election.  Hopefully, we have learned enough about the illegal voter registration practices of ACORN to protect ourselves from illegal voter registration in the future.  It is up to the elected officials of this country to protect the integrity of the voting process.  When they do not do their job, it hurts all of us.

The Bulletin, a Philadelphia newspaper, reported yesterday that Representative Frank Wolf, a Republican from Virginia, issued a public statement saying that Attorney General Eric Holder has instructed staff attorneys to ignore legal subpoenas by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission (CRC) requesting information about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case.

Mr. Wolf has repeatedly asked Attorney General Holder why the voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party were dismissed.  He has not received a reply.

The article points out:

“…Mr. Wolf introduced a measure December 17 that would require the House Judiciary Committee to deal with this issue. He also announced that he had language inserted in the annual spending bill that funds the Justice Department requiring that its Office of Professional Responsibility provide the results of the investigation it is conducting surrounding the dismissal the case to the House Appropriations Committee.”

The video at YouTube shows exactly what happened in Philadelphia.  To ignore what was done at that polling place is to put future elections in jeopardy.

Randall Hoven at the American Thinker posted an article today on what the Congressional Budget Office’s numbers on the cost of the Senate healthcare bill actually mean.  Since Harry Reid has the sixty votes to get this legislation passed, it guess it’s time to take a close look at those numbers.

The Democrats claim that the legislation will reduce the deficit by $132 billion over the 10 years from 2010 to 2019.  Since more people will be covered by government-subsidized healthcare, that seems rather amazing.  They are telling the truth–those are the numbers for that period of time–what they are not telling you is how they do it.  It’s really very simple.  Begin increased taxes and Medicare cuts in 1010, but do not spend any significant money on healthcare programs until after 2014 (after President Obama leaves office if he is elected to a second term). 

Mr. Hoven points out the where the money to pay for healthcare legislation comes from between 2010 and 2019:

• “Spending changes” (e.g., Medicare cuts):  $483 billion.
• Excise tax on high-premium plans:  $149 billion.
• Savings from “other sources” (like penalties for being uninsured):  $108 billion.
• Other “revenues”:  $264 billion.

That will be the beginning.  The trouble begins with something called the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).  The states would be required to pick up a lot of the cost of this legislation–states that are not doing well financially to begin with.  (In a previous post at RightWingGranny it was noted that Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska cut a deal so that Nebraska would not have to pay these costs–the other states would pay Nebraska’s share!).

The article points out:

“The “deficit reduction” comes in the earlier years: $111 billion of the $132 billion reduction comes in the first five years, 2010-2014.  That is because the taxes start early, but insuring the uninsured comes later, mostly after President Obama is long gone from office.  By 2019, the “deficit reduction” will be only $16 billion, per the CBO.  The overall deficit will be over $1 trillion by then, and the federal debt held by the public will be over $17 trillion.”

If this horrible piece of legislation passes, all of us owe it to ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren to elect Congressmen who will repeal it as soon as possible.  This is not a healthcare bill–it will degrade medical care for all of us and will be unbelievably expensive in the process.

National Review posted an article by Andrew McCarthy on the plan to close Guantanamo so that terrorists cannot use it as a recruiting tool.  Andrew McCarthy was the man who headed the prosecution of the ‘Blind Sheikh,’ the man responsible for the first bombing of the World Trade Center.

The Blind Sheikh (Omar Abdel Rahman) and eleven other terrorists were tried in civilian courts for conspiracy to levy war against the United States — Section 2384 of the federal penal code.  They were never held at Guantanamo, and they received all the rights of American citizens.  When they were found guilty, the appeals process began, followed by claims that their civil rights were not upheld or that the prison conditions were inhumane.

Please read the entire article to be reminded of some of the terrorism that happened as a result of this man being found guilty and send to prison. Guantanamo did not even exist as a terrorist prison at that point. 

Andrew McCarthy concludes:

“From the prison where he serves his life sentence, Abdel Rahman was able to announce to the world: “The Sheikh is calling on you, morning and evening: Oh Muslims! Oh Muslims! And he finds no respondents. It is a duty upon all the Muslims around the world to come to free the Sheikh, and to rescue him from his jail.” That he was in a nice civilian jail after a nice civilian trial didn’t make any difference. Of Americans, the sheikh decreed: “Muslims everywhere [must] dismember their nation, tear them apart, ruin their economy, provoke their corporations, destroy their embassies, attack their interests, sink their ships, and shoot down their planes, kill them on land, at sea, and in the air. Kill them wherever you find them.” Osama bin Laden later called this the green light — the necessary Islamic fatwa — for the 9/11 attacks. It was four years before there was a Gitmo for Dick Durbin to blame. So should we shut down all the civilian prisons, too?”

Closing Guantanamo will make the world less safe–it shows weakness to the terrorists and takes away the possibility of being isolated in a prison until the war on terror is over.  It makes the price of committing terrorism lower, and I don’t think that is a good idea.

The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room is reporting today that Ben Nelson will be the sixtieth vote for the Democrats on their healthcare reform bill. 

The Washington Post reports that: 

“Nelson also secured full federal funding for his state to expand Medicaid coverage to people below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. That bill would require all states to expand Medicaid eligibility, but all states except Nebraska would pay a portion of the additional cost of doing so after 2016. Nelson also won concessions for qualifying nonprofit insurers and for Medigap providers from a new insurance tax, and he was able to roll back cuts to health savings accounts.”

This is a payoff.  Nebraska will not have to pay the increased cost of Medicaid that result from this bill–those costs in Nebraska will be picked up by all the other states for Nebraska. 

Senator Nelson’s claim that he was defending the unborn is now proven to be untrue.  It is really sad to see the Senator bought off in this manner.

Power Line reported yesterday on the dedication ceremony for a 9/11 monument and Living Memorial sponsored by the Jewish National Fund.  There is a video of the dedication of the Memorial posted on YouTube.  The Memorial, located in Jerusalem Forest Hills,  contains a small piece of wreckage from the World Trade Center.  The dedication took place last month (November 12).  The theme of the Memorial is the understanding that Israel and now America have regarding the cost of terrorism.  The video at YouTube is beautiful.

The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that the Gulf states are moving toward the launch of their own currency–the gulfo.

The article reports:

“”The Gulf monetary union pact has come into effect,” said the Kuwaiti Finance Minister, Mustafa al-Shamali, speaking at a Gulf Co-operation Council summit meeting in Kuwait City. The move will give the hyper-rich club of oil exporters a petro-currency of its own, greatly increasing its influence in the global exchange and capital markets and potentially displacing the US dollar as the pricing currency for oil contracts. Between them the Gulf countries amount to a regional superpower with a gross domestic product of $US1.2 trillion ($1.3 trillion), some 40 per cent of the world’s proven oil reserves, and financial clout equal to that of China.”

I’m not sure how soon this will actually be done, but it has grave implications for the American dollar and for American foreign policy.  The plan is to launch the first phase of the currency next year.  The central bank for the currency will be located in Riyadh, at the insistence of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah.

Part of the reason for America’s tolerance of Saudi Arabia’s policies toward Muslim extremists is that the Saudis have always supported the American dollar as the currency to be used in the world’s oil trading.  The move toward the “gulfo” (the name is based on the euro) is a slap in the face toward America and will totally devalue the dollar.  This is partially the result of the runaway spending going on in America right now, but it is also another example of what happens when the American President is viewed as weak.

Yahoo News is reporting today that Iran has taken over one of the oil wells on the border of Iraq and Iran.  There was no violence in the takeover. 

The article reports:

“The oil field is in disputed territory in between Iranian and Iraqi border forts,” he said, adding that such incidents occur quite frequently.

“An official of the state-owned South Oil Co in the southeastern city of Amara, and west of the field, said: “An Iranian force arrived at the field early this morning (Friday).

“It took control of Well 4 and raised the Iranian flag even though the well lies in Iraqi territory,” the official added.”

Evidently this sort of incident is not uncommon, due to the fact that some of the land between Iraq and Iran is ‘disputed’. 

This is not an unusual situation, but simply shows that Iran generally is in the business of poking at it’s neighbors whenever possible.  Iran is the little brother in the backseat of the car on a family trip that delights in torturing his big sister with the aim of getting her in trouble!

The danger here is the belief by the ruling mullahs of Iran that they need to create chaos to hasten the return of the Mahdi.  I believe that is their motivation for poking at Iraq and for developing nuclear weapons which will threaten their part of the world.  Since the Iranian mullahs believe the return of the Mahdi is a positive thing, they don’t care what kind of chaos they create in hastening his return. 

On November 8, 2009, a webside named NiceDeb.WordPress.com posted a story about a planned parenthood worker who had become pro-life.  The post features a video of an interview on the Huckabee show on Fox News Channel.  This blog reported on Ms. Johnson on November 2nd (RightWingGranny.com). 

The blog at Nice Deb quoted Ms. Johnson on her experiences while viewing an abortion on ultrasound:

“I saw the probe going into the woman’s uterus. And at that moment, I saw the baby moving and trying to get away from the probe. … And I thought, “It’s fighting for its life.” And I thought, “It’s life, I mean, it’s alive.”

“I just was thinking, “Oh, my gosh, make it stop.” And then, all of a sudden, I mean, it was just over, just, in the blink of an eye. And I just saw the, I just saw the baby just literally, just crumble, and it was over.”

I apologize for the graphic nature of this quote, but that is what happens every time an abortion is done.  A baby dies.  This is not a procedure that should be paid for by federal tax money, nor is it a procedure that should be routinely done.  Unless the life of the mother is truly in danger, there is no reason to kill a baby.  We need to open our eyes to the fact that our culture is being influenced in a negative way by the fact that we are routinely killing the most innocent members of our society every day.

The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room reported today that Ben Nelson has stated that he would not support the healthcare reform bill unless it has strong restrictions preventing federal funds from being used to pay for abortions.  Senator Nelson also stated that he has other concerns about the bill.  It needs to be noted that Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported today that Governor Dave Heineman of Nebraska has told Senator Nelson that the current healthcare bill is bad for Nebraska and has asked the Senator to block the vote on it. 

Several liberal Democrats are opposed to the bill because of the changes made in the bill to encourage the more moderate Democrats to support it. 

The Hill reports:

“A deadline and timeline that’s out there that’s not achievable isn’t helpful,” he (Senator Nelson) said. “I couldn’t tell you that they can’t come up with something that’s acceptable on abortion between now and then and solve all the other issues that I’ve raised to them, but I don’t see how.”

Nelson released a statement later Thursday afternoon confirming he won’t vote for the bill in its current form.”

It is not news to anyone that healthcare insurance reform is needed.  The question becomes what that reform should include.  Until healthcare reform includes tort reform, portability across state lines, insurance for pre-existing conditions, and tax credits to allow low-income people to afford health insurance, I am not interested in making any changes.  Change for the sake of saying something was changed is not constructive.

The two sources for this post are an article posted at Power Line yesterday and an article posted yesterday at Fox News.  Both articles deal with what is happening in Copenhagen and what the consequences of the conference at Copenhagen could be.

Fox News points out that the President of the United States cannot sign any treaty without the consent of Congress.  He cannot legally sign any pledge reducing carbon emissions in the United States without the appoval of two-thirds of the US Senate. 

Fox News states:

“Last week, on the day the climate summit opened in Denmark, the EPA formally declared that greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide are a danger to human health — a finding that could pave the way for massive new regulations under the Clean Air Act for cars, power plants, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants.

“While administration officials have said they would prefer Congress take action on regulating greenhouse gas emissions, Republicans fear the EPA, buoyed by its latest finding, is prepared to act unilaterally.

“Democratic Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, co-author of the House climate change bill, told Fox News that the Obama administration has the power to act without Congress through the EPA.”

Hopefully, signing and enacting a treaty without the consent of Congress would be challenged in the courts.  This idea is obviously not in keeping with the US Constitution.

Power Line reports on the appearance of Hugo Chavez at Copenhagen.  He was greeted enthusiastically.

Power LIne comments on Hugo Chavez’s speech:

“But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ – “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell….let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.”

I have a better idea–let’s fight against the forces of tyranny (such as Hugo Chavez) and let the people of the world be free to prosper!

The current environmental movement represented at Copenhagen is not about the environment–it’s about the redistribution of wealth.  If we value the freedom we have as Americans and the free economy that made us strong, we need to look very carefully at what is going on at Copenhagen.  I am not in favor of pollution, but I am opposed to using pollution as an excuse to steal money from people who have legally earned it.  That’s what Copenhagen is about.  There is no problem with doing what we can to help other countries prosper, but if you look at which countries are thriving economically, you find that the shortest path to prosperity includes freedom.  Freedom provides the incentive to succeed.  We need more capitalism to create wealth for everyone, not less. 

Yesterday’s Washington Examiner reports that the White House has threatened Senator Ben Nelson with the closure of Nebraska’s Offutt Air Force Base if the Senator does not vote for the current healthcare legislation.  Senator Nelson opposes the federal funding of abortion, which is included in the bill. 

The blog at the Weekly Standard reports:

“…Offutt is the headquarters for US Strategic Command, the successor to Strategic Air Command, and not by accident. STRATCOM was located in the middle of the country for strategic reasons. Its closure would be a massive blow to the economy of the state of Nebraska, but it would also be another example of this administration playing politics with our national security.”

This is not the way honest people who love this country do business.

Godspeed, Oral Roberts

Yesterday’s Washington Examiner published the graph below to illustrate how spending in the previous Senate version of the healthcare bill was set up.  The curve in the current version is similar–nothing has changed very much.

As you can see from the graph, the real spending does not begin until 2014–two years after the next presidential election. 

The article points out:

 “The Congressional Budget Office found that just $9 billion of the $848 billion total spending aimed at expanding coverage from 2010 to 2019 would occur in the first four years, while the remaining $839 billion wouldn’t come until the last six. In percentage terms, a whopping 1 percent of spending would occur from 2010 to 2014.”

The taxes included in the bill will begin almost immediately–that’s how the bill was made to look deficit neutral.  If this bill is passed, it will bankrupt the medical system and the government very quickly.

The Free Republic reported yesterday that Andrew Breitbart (founder of BigGovernment.com) has been summoned to New York to appear before a Grand Jury there.  The summons is in regard to the sting operation exposing illegal activities of ACORN which was first reported at BigGovernment.com (and not initially reported by too many other news outlets!). 

It will be interesting to see whether the Grand Jury chooses to overlook the illegal activities of ACORN (which uses federal money)  and prosecute the person who exposed the illegal activities, or whether they are actually interested in prosecuting ACORN for its illegal activities. 

It also needs to be pointed out that a New York judge has told the government that they have to continue funding ACORN with federal money despite its illegal activites (voter fraud, aiding and abetting criminal activities, not following federal guidelines in disposing of people’s financial and mortage records, etc.).  It will be interesting to see how all of this shakes out!

The Hill is reporting today that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has told vulnerable Democratic members that they will not vote on controversial bills in 2010 unless the Senate acts first.  This is a pollitically wise decision.  The House got burned on Cap and Trade legislation when members voted on something that would hurt their chances of re-election and then the Senate did nothing on the matter.  If healthcare does not pass in the Senate, that will be another unpopular vote the House of Representatives took for no apparent reason.

Speaker Pelosi has stated that the House of Representatives will not take up the issue of Immigration Reform until it has passed the Senate.  Other bills that could be affected by the caution of Ms. Pelosi are “Card Check” and the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The article points out:

“Talking about the financial regulatory reform bill that moved through the House last week without any GOP support, Connolly referenced the flipping of 40 Democrats on a controversial amendment to give judges new power to rewrite home mortgages — known as “cramdown” — to showcase the approach vulnerable members have been taking on issues that the Senate has shown little appetite for.

“Most of us voted against the [Rep. John] Conyers [Jr. (D-Mich.)] amendment to reinstitute ‘cramdown.’ We may have supported — I did — cramdown earlier this year, but the Senate said, ‘No, we’re not going to do it,'” Connolly said. “The freshmen pretty much said, ‘Why have a Pyrrhic victory on this issue only to have the Senate shoot us down yet again?'””

Mid-term elections generally produce gains for the party opposing the President, so it is not unusual for the Democrats to be concerned, but the recent Republican victories in governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey have sounded alarms.  Virginia was expected, but New Jersey is typically a Democrat state, and the loss there was serious.

Today’s Washington Examiner posted an editorial noting the growing number of Democrat Congressmen who are retiring at the end of their terms in 2010.  In recent weeks four Democrats have announced retirement plans that do not include running for higher office.  Representative Bart Gordon, a Democrat from Tennessee, announced he will not seek a 14th term,  It is troubling to me that he has been there for 13 terms!  We need term limits!

The article points out:

“Gordon’s departure, which Republicans say was preceded by dire poll numbers, has led some political analysts to predict trouble in November 2010 for the Democratic Party. The Cook Political Report immediately moved Gordon’s seat into their “likely Republican” column. Cook’s House race editor, Dave Wasserman, wrote that Gordon’s announcement brings the number of vulnerable open Democratic seats to seven and if the number “balloons past 15, House Republicans will have a real opportunity to hit this midterm election out of the park.””

Although I love the concept, I’m not ready to get excited yet.  I believe there will be Republican gains in the house and Senate next year simply because of the unpopularity of Senator Read and Representative Pelosi.  Their leadership has veered much farther left than most people expected, and I believe that in the 2010 elections many people will be supporting more moderate candidates.

The Corner at National Review posted an article yesterday about the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act sponsored by Daniel Akaka.  Senator Akaka has been trying to get this piece of legislature passed since 1999.  On Friday afternoon, the Republicans were told there would be a markup on this bill, but the Republicans have not seen the bill yet.  The rumor is that the bill will be put into the Defense Appropriations Bill that will be passed before the end of this legislative session.  This would avoid a full debate on the bill.

The bill essentially says that in order to participate in the government of Hawaii, a person must be a native Hawaiian–not someone who simply lives there.  People of Hawaiian heritage living in other parts of the US would be allowed to participate in the government of Hawaii if they met the bloodline requirement. 

According to the article:

“The most pernicious outcome is perhaps the only one that is assured: The governing entity would lead to a permanent hereditary caste in Hawaii, where natives–defined however the interim government chooses to define them–enjoy at least some rights that non-natives do not. Tax-exempt status and immunity from Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations are two possibilities.”

The bill itself is awful.  Among other things, the bill is racist, but aside from that, to sneak it into a defense bill to avoid debate is just wrong.  All Americans are allowed to vote and to hold office in our country.  To make government participation dependent on heredity is not in keeping with the founding documents of this country.

One of the things we need to understand about political thugs is that they have little regard for the lives their thuggery impacts in a negative way.  Keeping that fact in mind, Iran has stated that it is going to put the three Americans who accidentally crossed into Iran from Iraq last summer on trial.  The three Americans are guilty of nothing more than a faulty sense of direction, but the Irani Foreign Minister has stated that they had “suspicious aims.”  In November, they were accused of spying.

The details of the story are found at My Way News.  When the three were detained in July, one theory was that Iran would release them in a way that made it seem as if Iran were responding positively to the diplomatic overtures of the Obama Administration.  It seems, however, that there may have been a different motive for the detention of the three. 

According to the article:

“Raising concerns that Iran might be seeking to use them in a deal, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said during remarks about their case last month that the United States was holding several Iranian citizens.

“In particular, he drew a link between the case of the three Americans and the trial in the U.S. of Amir Hossein Ardebili, an Iranian who faces up to 140 years in prison after pleading guilty to plotting to ship sensitive U.S. military technology to Iran.

“According to court papers, Ardebili worked as a procurement agent for the Iranian government and acquired thousands of components, including military aircraft parts, night vision devices, communications equipment and Kevlar. U.S. federal authorities targeted him in 2004 after he contacted an undercover storefront set up in Philadelphia to investigate illegal arms trafficking.”

Kidnapping has long been a political tool in the Middle East.  It was used extensively in Lebanon between 1982 and 1992.  Kidnapping was used to win concessions from the countries of the people kidnapped.  Iran has learned this lesson well.

Masschusetts residents will be going to the polls next month for a special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.  No one will ever replace Ted Kennedy.  Whether you loved him or hated him, he was a hard-working Senator who did what he felt was best for the State of Massachusetts. 

The two candidates for the seat are Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and State Senator Scott Brown.  Obviously, this is a state-wide election, but it has national implications.  Massachusetts is not in the habit of electing Republican Senators, but it could happen in this case.

Martha Coakley has generally held policies that are in tune with Democrat party politics in Massachusetts (and nationally).  She will support Obamacare, is pro-choice, and opposes the increase in troops for Afghanistan.  Generally, a vote for Martha Coakley is a vote for Congress to continue moving in the direction that it is currently going.

Scott Brown has shown himself to be an independent thinker who will vote his conscience.   He is a Massachusetts State Senator who is also a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army National Guard.  Generally he supports positions that are in line with the US Constitution.  A vote for Scott Brown is a vote for less government spending, smaller government, and lower taxes.

The question for Massachusetts is, “Do you want to change the direction Washington is currently heading, or do you want politics as usual?”

On Friday, Reuters reported that the IRS is hiring people to be part of a new unit it is setting up for the purpose of ‘catching rich tax cheats hiding their wealth in complex business entities.’  Admittedly, cheating on taxes is something that should be stopped, but to focus specifically on one group of people seems a bit odd. 

The unit will focus on trusts, real estate investments, privately held companies and other business entities controlled by rich individuals.  Part of the budget bill passed in Congress in recent days included adding $387 millions dollars to the IRS budget for the fiscal year that started October 1.  Part of this money will go to fund this new unit aimed at wealthy taxpayers.

According to the article:

“The IRS is also opening new criminal offices in Beijing, Panama City and Sydney to focus on funds flowing out of Europe and into Asia, in part because of a heightened focus on international enforcement in Europe.”

It would be cheaper to change the tax code so that people would not have the incentive to cheat! 

CNSNews posted an article on Friday reporting that Sen. Mary Landrieu (Democrat-Louisiana) was questioned by CNS News as to whether or not requiring Americans to buy health insurance is legal.

The article reports:

“CNSNews.com asked Landrieu: “You mentioned that there will be no employer mandate [in the Senate health care bill] but there is an individual mandate, and several members of Congress have said that an individual mandate is unconstitutional. What part of the Constitution do you think gives Congress the authority to mandate that individuals have to purchase health insurance?””

“That is the question.  Both the House and the Senate bills require individuals to purchase health insurance or be fined by the IRS.  The article states:

” In 1994, when Hillary Clinton’s healthcare proposals were being debated, the Congressional Budget Office stated, “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”
“An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.””

It will be interesting to see (if the healthcare bill passes) if the courts in American are prepared to uphold the constitution.

The Hill reported today that the Senate today (on Sunday) passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill.  The Republicans had filibustered the bill, but the Democrats broke through the filibuster on Saturday. 

According to the article:

“The bill, which includes $447 billion in appropriations for a number of cabinet departments and $650 billion for Medicare and Medicaid, combines six of the 12 annual spending bills Congress had been unable to pass separately because of Republican concerns that the measure is over-inflated and exceeds the cost of inflation in its government budget increases.”

The Democrats who voted against the bill were Sens. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Evan Bayh (Ind.).  There was one Republican who voted for the bill. 

The Senate is expected to return to working for passage of the healthcare bill next week.

Generally speaking, New England uses a lot of energy during the winter.  It gets cold here and people like to be warm.  When a wind farm was proposed offshore a few years ago, many of the residents of Cape Cod opposed it saying that it would ruin their view and do horrible things to the environment.  Since many of these people were very influential, the project was successfully blocked.  Well. some other Massachusetts residents who would see the wind turbines have a different perspective on the subject.

Boston.com reported Friday that a group of residents of Cuttyhunk Island, off the coast of Massachusetts, have stated that they would accept a wind farm off the coast of the island.  According to the article:

“By year’s end, the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs is expected to complete an ocean management plan and decide whether to allow wind farms in the area. The draft plan includes 100 turbines about 3 miles off the southern coast of Martha’s Vineyard in waters along the wildlife refuge and former Navy bombing range Nomans Land. Another 66 turbines are proposed off the southwestern coast of Cuttyhunk.”

The residents of Martha’s Vineyard have formed a group called Let Vineyarders Decide to protest the idea of windmills.  The question has become whether the residents of the Vineyard have the authority to stop all or part of the wind farm.  The residents of Cuttyhunk see the windmills as a way of helping them deal with the high cost of electricity on the island.  Cuttyhunk is not a ‘tourist’ island, and the people who live there have a median income of $22,344.  

One of the objections to the wind farm is from local fishermen, who are concerned about possible threats to fisheries   I know that the US Navy has sunk old (cleaned out and decontaminated) ships off the Atlantic coast to create artificial reefs that have increased marine life, so I am a little confused about whey the fishermen think the turbines would have a negative impact on marine life.

The current governor of Massachusetts supports wind farms, so it should be interesting to see what develops here.  I suspect that because of the amount of constant wind off the New England coast, this would be a good area to begin to use wind energy.  I know that  Rhode Island is also moving forward on constructing a wind farm.  On January 8,2009, Reuters.com posted a story stating that Deepwater Wind is scheduled to start construction on a wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island in 2010.