Today’s Daily Caller reports that U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue is vowing war on Obama’s “regulatory tsunami.” 

According to the article:

“…Obama is poised to advance an agenda that includes unilateral global warming regulations at the Environmental Protection Agency and, critics fear, a version of union-promoting “card check” by administrative fiat.”

In case you are wondering why the unions are pushing so hard for members, there are a number of reasons.  First of all, more members means more power–more dues to inject into political races, more influence in Washington, more money to play with, and secondly, union pension funds have not been required to meet the cash-on-hand requirements of private company pensions, and union pensions are about the run out of money.  They are in a position similar to Social Security–if they can recruit a number of new members to pay dues and money into retirement funds, they may be able to avoid the embarrassment of bankrupt pension funds.  Social Security would accomplish the same thing if suddenly millions of illegals became legal and began paying into the program.  It wouldn’t solve the problem in either case, but it would push the problem down the road so that the people who actually caused it wouldn’t look responsible for it!

Two particular areas of legislation were cited in the article:

“”The new health-care law creates 159 new agencies, commissions, panels and other bodies,” he said. “We see the upcoming House vote [on repeal] as an opportunity for everyone to take a fresh look at health-care reform.”

“On the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, Donohue cited the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as his top concern.

“”We are particularly concerned that” the new agency “not use its broad authority in ways that deny small businesses and consumers the credit and financial products they need,” he said.”

This could be a very interesting Congressional session!  I heard a comment today that Bill Gates would not be able to start Microsoft in today’s regulatory environment.  If that is true, it is very sad.

Glenn Reynolds posted an editorial  in today’s Wall Street Journal about the mainstream media and Democrat political reaction to the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and the other victims.  On a personal level, I must admit that I am concerned about the obsession that some of the media and many of the Democrats have with Sarah Palin.  The woman does not currently hold public office, she is not currently running for anything, and the media and some Democrats credit her with incredible power.  She seems like a nice, straight-forward lady who is very direct in voicing her opinions.  Some of us find that attractive.

Anyway, back to the editorial.  Mr. Reynolds points out:

“With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman’s words, a “climate of hate.””

Mr. Reynolds challenges those who themselves are blaming others for the character assassination they practice:

“To be clear, if you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?”

It is becoming very obvious from the news reports that the shooter in Tucson was a very disturbed individual.  It is unfortunate that warning signs were observed, but they were such that no action was taken–you really can’t arrest someone if they haven’t done anything.  I do wonder, however, if a teacher or other person in this young man’s life could have recommended him for a mental evaluation of some sort.  A perceptive mental health worker might have saved some lives.

On Firday, Investors.com posted an article about the end of the ‘time-out’ imposed on Mexican trucks operating in the United States.  The ‘time-out’ was imposed two years ago.

The article points out that:

“That’s a good thing, because it will restore U.S. trade ties with our third-largest trading partner to normal. And it won’t be tough for Mexico to measure up. Contrary to common perception, legal Mexican trucks have consistently passed U.S. safety inspections, outperforming even U.S. trucks. Since 2003, just 1.2% of Mexican truck drivers on U.S. roads were not out of compliance; for American drivers, the figure is 7%.”

The article states that as the trade with Mexico returns to pre time-out levels, the lifting of the restrictions will save United States companies approximately $400 million in transportation costs. 

The article points out:

“Shutting the Mexican trucks out may have pleased labor unions, but it cost literally tens of thousands of American jobs in 43 states. Washington apples, California grapes and Dakota wheat all got socked with these self-inflicted tariffs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates about 28,000 jobs were lost.

“With U.S. firms paying $2.4 billion in useless tariffs each year, money that could have been spent to upgrade equipment, boost sales or hire workers went to Mexico’s government coffers instead.”

When we reneged on our previous agreements and put a ‘time-out’ on the trucks, Mexico placed $2.4 billion in tariffs on 99 U.S.-made products in retaliation.  Hopefully an end to the shutdown will mean an end to the tariffs.

Trade wars for any reason are a really bad idea.  Hopefully we will learn from this experience.

Today’s New York Post reported that an Israeli vulture, tagged in a migration study, has been arrested in Saudi Arabia for spying.  Yes, you read that right.  This comes after charges by Egypt that Mossad placed a man-eating shark in the Red Sea last month to cripple Egyptian tourism.  Right.  Let’s also remember Iran’s arrest of 14 squirrels in 2007 for “carrying spy gear of foreign agencies.”  Remind me to check the chipmunks in my backyard–who knows what they are doing?

And we wonder why peace in the Middle East is elusive?

An Egyptian website called ahramonline.beta reported on Friday that “thousands of Muslims showed up at Coptic Christmas eve mass services in churches around the country and at candle light vigils held outside.”  The Coptic Christians celebrated Christmas on Friday.  The Muslims were there to act as human shields to prevent another attack on the Coptic Christians by extremist Muslims. 

The article states:

“In the days following the brutal attack on Saints Church in Alexandria, which left 21 dead on New Year’ eve, solidarity between Muslims and Copts has seen an unprecedented peak. Millions of Egyptians changed their Facebook profile pictures to the image of a cross within a crescent – the symbol of an “Egypt for All”. Around the city, banners went up calling for unity, and depicting mosques and churches, crosses and crescents, together as one.”

Thank God for the courage of the Muslims who showed up at the Christian services.  Their courage and willingness to protect their fellow Egyptians regardless of religion is encouraging.

On Friday John Hinderaker at Power Line reported that on Wednesday twenty-nine House Republicans introduced a bill to do away with the “czars” appointed by President Obama.  According to the article:

“The bill defines a “czar” as “a head of any task force, council, policy office within the Executive Office of the President, or similar office established by or at the direction of the President” who is appointed to a position that would otherwise require Senate confirmation.”

Mr. Hinderaker states in the article that he wonders what will happen to the bill in the Senate.  After all, the Senate is the legislative body that is responsible for confirming the President’s appointments to his cabinet and other offices.  Is the Senate willing to give up its own power and responsibility in order to avoid supporting a Republican bill?  This should be interesting.

The shooting in Arizona yesterday was a tragedy.  Thanks to the heroism and basic knowledge of first aid of some of the people there, Representative Gabrielle Giffords is still alive.  Hopefully, she will recover fully.  I wonder, however, if free speech in America will survive this shooting.  I am listing six links to articles I found on the internet about the shooting.  I will excerpt some of them and let you draw your own conclusions.

Yesterday in Human Events:

“Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., a New Jersey Democrat, blamed the Fox News Channel for today’s shooting spree that left Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords critically wounded and four others slain. 

“He told a local New Jersey paper shortly after the incident, “There’s an aura of hate and elected politicians feed it, certain people on Fox News feed it.””

Common sense from BigGovernment.com:

“From my vantage point, having spent several years working undercover with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on issues related to both domestic and international terrorism, I know that political violence is a human problem. It is an issue which transcends Left or Right, race, or any other confine or label we as Americans might try to place upon the age old problem. However, I also have another vantage point regarding political violence. This is, to put it simply, the personal experience of being burned by the discrepancy in how the predominantly Left oriented Mainstream Media portrays the political violence of the Left in comparison with that of the Right.”

There are pictures on a website called Verum Serum of Democrat party literature using bullseyes to represent targeted Republican districts.  Democrats have said that Sarah Palin using crosshairs to represent targeted districts caused this shooting.  I guess bullseyes are different than crosshairs.  Please follow the link to see the pictures of literature sent out. 

Power Line points out that some of the people screaming ‘hate speech’ caused this are the same people who routinely use ‘hate speech’ against anyone who disagrees with them.

The Washington Examiner reminds of the press reaction to the Fort Hood shooting:

“Nevertheless, public officials, journalists, and commentators were quick to caution that the public should not “jump to conclusions” about Hasan’s motive.  CNN, in particular, became a forum for repeated warnings that the subject should be discussed with particular care.

“”The important thing is for everyone not to jump to conclusions,” said retired Gen. Wesley Clark on CNN the night of the shootings.

“”We cannot jump to conclusions,” said CNN’s Jane Velez-Mitchell that same evening. “We have to make sure that we do not jump to any conclusions whatsoever.”

“”I’m on Pentagon chat room,” said former CIA operative Robert Baer on CNN, also the night of the shooting.  “Right now, there’s messages going back and forth, saying do not jump to the conclusion this had anything to do with Islam.””

Contrast these statements with how quickly conservatives were seen as responsible for the attack in Arizona.

My point in listing all of this is that this horrendous attack was the work of a deeply disturbed young man.  Today’s Washington Post posted an article noting that he was removed from a class at a community college for being disruptive. 

Free speech is one of the foundations of democracy.  Right now our mainstream media is not doing its job of fairly reporting the news.  This fact has opened the door for alternative media that is actually reporting the news.  The thing to remember here is that just because someone disagrees with you it does not mean that they are engaging in ‘hate speech.’  We are reaching a situation where the term ‘hate speech’ will have no meaning at all because it has been used so often in an attempt to gain political advantage.  It’s time to step back, take a deep breath, and help the people who were directly impacted by this event.

Max Boot has written an article for the January 17th issue of the Weekly Standard about the proposed reductions in military spending.  Mr. Boot points out that in the past demobilization has cost us dearly. At present the Army has 566,045 active-duty soldiers.  In 2001 the number was 478,918, down from 710,821 in 1991 (at the end of the cold war). 

Mr. Boot states:

“That (current number of troops) is still too small–a force that size has too little “dwell time” at home and places too much stress on soldiers. It also imposes constraints, helping to curtail the size of the force we send to Afghanistan even though more troops could get the job done with less risk.”

The defense budget accounts for less than 20 percent of federal spending.  The article points out that there have been serious cuts in weapons systems also.  As China is developing weapons to secure its place in the world, we are stepping down from our place.  This is not a good thing.  The military budget probably does have room for cuts, but they need to be carefully considered, keeping in mind that we live in a dangerous world where we are fighting two wars.  The war on terror may not end when we finally withdraw from Afghanistan.  To assume that we can cut troops and weapons now is a dangerous assumption.

Yesterday Big Government posted an article about the slow economic recover and the things that are hindering a robust economy.  The article points out that during the Bush Administration, any economic news was reported from a negative slant.  The media right now is trying to put a positive spin on economic news, but the picture at the above link tells the story better than any words!

The article lists five things that are preventing the recovery all of us are looking for:

1.  Historically high unemployment.  None of the economic experts have voiced an expectation that the 9 percent plus unemployment rate will fall in the near future.

2.  The mortgage foreclosure crisis hits the economy in a number of ways–as the value of housing falls, defaults increase, the value continues to fall, and homeowners’ equity decreases.  This contributes to a feeling of uneasiness about the economy in general.

3.  Rising gas prices put a drag on economic growth.  The Obama Administration has essentially blocked development of America’s carbon resources and that policy will continue to adversely impact both economic growth and trade balances.

4.  A significant increase in government regulations.  The healthcare bill alone has caused many businesses to put off expansion plans indefinitely.

5.  Large states (California, for example) with unfunded liabilities that cannot be met without government bailouts are going to be asking for federal money very soon.  This will also be a problem.

To change these factors, Congress would have to change much of the policy now enshrined in Washington, D. C.  Hopefully there are enough people in the freshman class of Congress that understand economics well enough to begin to move in the right direction.

Today’s Worcester Telegram & Gazette is reporting that newly sworn in Worcester County Sheriff Lewis G. Evangelidis has ended a legal services contract with Winthrop lawyer Jeffrey R. Turco, a close friend of the previous sheriff.  Attorney Turco, who was hired under a no-bid contract, had billed the Sheriff’s Department for $320,706 in legal fees as of late December.  Please follow the link above to the article to see more about the cronyism that has ended with this decision. 

I posted an article (Right Wing Granny) about Mr. Evangelidis in October after meeting him at the Southborough Heritage Day.  This is what I wrote about him then:

“Lew Evangelidis is committed to reducing the number of repeat offenders to save taxpayers’ money.  He will create programs to develop crime, drug, and cyber bullying prevention programs for public schools.  His goals are simple–keeping people safe, ending patronage, saving taxpayers’ money and being a community partner and educator.  Lew Evangelidis is not part of the Worcester County political machine and will bring a breath of fresh air to the office of Sheriff.  I don’t get to vote for Lew Evangelidis–I don’t live in his district, but he is an example of the kind of qualified, knowledgeable candidate running for office in Massachusetts this year.” 

This is the kind of leadership Massachusetts desperately needs.  I wish Mr. Evangelidis continued success in meeting his goals.

Today’s American Thinker reported that despite the fact that President Obama seemed to lift the deep-water drilling ban back in October, no new projects have been approved.  Even those already approved have been halted by the president’s interior secretary, Ken Salazar.

The article reports:

“Once again, Obama is playing “Mother, May I?” with the energy industry.  It’s good politics to appear conciliatory at a moment when gas prices are rising.  But Obama never seems to follow through.  Oil and gas production in the U.S. continues to lag.  Instead of streamlining energy production, the president has created an entirely new agency to regulate offshore drilling (the ponderously titled “Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement,” or BOEMRE) and staffed it with a former Clinton Justice Department lawyer.  This new layer of federal bureaucracy, like all government bureaucracy, has done nothing but delay and forestall production.  Obviously, Obama is in no hurry to increase offshore drilling.”

 

“The irony is that countries like Brazil, China, Russia, Norway, and even Israel are pressing ahead with ambitious offshore drilling projects.  In Brazil, the state petroleum company Petrobras is moving ahead with deep-water drilling in eight major offshore areas, promising to make Brazil the Saudi Arabia of the Americas.  Not only will these projects render Brazil energy-independent, but the effort will make Brazil a major oil exporter by 2020.  The result will be prosperity for the citizens of that South American country and a lower standard of living for those — like citizens of the United States — who are  forced to import oil from them.”

“With gas prices at the pump moving up, closing in on $4 a gallon in some places, Americans have reason to be concerned.  Higher gas prices will crimp consumer spending, possibly forestalling the economic recovery now underway.  The simplest way to lower gas prices is to increase supply worldwide.  With what amounts to a complete ban on deep-water drilling in the U.S., a significant portion of that supply has been placed off bounds.”

Yesterday CBS News‘ Political Hotseat reported that repealing Obamacare would increase the deficit by roughly $230 billion through 2021, according to a preliminary analysis of the legislation by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).  Well, there are a few things they left out of the equation.  The Congressional Budge Office is nonpartisan, but it is not a research group–it is a group that simply processes the numbers they are given.  They do not investigate the validity of the numbers.

For instance, why would the deficit be increased if Obamacare was repealed?  Well, Obamacare makes severe cuts to Medicare and then counts those cuts as savings as it spends the money on Medicaid.  There are a number of obvious and less-than-obvious tax increases that are built into Obamacare which will not happen if the bill is repealed.  The article at CBS points out:

“The March health care legislation contained a set of provisions designed to expand health insurance coverage, which CBO and [Joint Committee on Taxation] estimated would have a gross cost of about $930 billion and a net cost (after accounting for certain related changes in outlays and revenues) of about $780 billion over the 2012-2019 period. Repealing that legislation would eliminate such costs. But [the health care legislation] also included a number of provisions to reduce federal outlays (primarily for Medicare) and to increase federal revenues (mostly by increasing the Hospital Insurance payroll tax and imposing fees on certain manufacturers and insurers); in March, CBO and JCT estimated that those provisions unrelated to insurance coverage would, on balance, reduce direct spending by about $500 billion and increase revenues by about $410 billion over the 2012-2019 period. If that legislation was repealed, such reductions in spending and increases in revenues would not occur. Thus, H.R. 2 would, on net, increase federal deficits over that period.”

The thing to keep in mind here is common sense.  As reported at Right Wing Granny on December 29, there are already questions as to whether the estimated costs of certain provisions of Obamacare are accurate.  How can adding millions of people to health insurance rolls and government subsidizing their premiums not cost money? 

The Heritage Foundation posted an article yesterday about the CBO estimates.  The article points out that the CBO report included this disclaimer:

“Current law now includes a number of policies that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time. … If those provisions would have subsequently been modified or implemented incompletely, then the budgetary effects of repealing [the law] and the relevant provisions of the Reconciliation Act could be quite different–but CBO cannot forecast future changes in law or assume such changes in its estimates.”

The article also reports:

“Then, Obamacare creates a new subsidy program for the middle class to purchase insurance. CBO predicts that 19 million Americans will benefit from this generous new entitlement program. But this doesn’t take into account Obamacare’s huge incentives for employers to drop their insurance programs and allow employees to instead purchase taxpayer-subsidized coverage. Former CBO director Doug Holtz-Eakin points out that both businesses and their employees stand to seriously benefit by dropping employer coverage and instead relying on taxpayer-subsidized health care. These incentives, combined with the various new insurance rules that will increase premiums on employer plans, will cause the cost of the subsidy program to greatly exceed expectations.”

The thing to remember here is that Obamacare will probably not be repealed until there is a Republican in the White House.  As the fight intensifies, as it will, the thing to remember is that part of what is being reported as the cost of repealing Obamacare is the loss of revenue from the new taxes that are included in the bill.  The bill also includes funding for thousands of new IRS agents.  Wouldn’t that increase the deficit?  The bill sees that as reducing the deficit because of the increase in taxes collected.  This is very stange accounting.

Today’s American Spectator just posted a story saying that the House of Representative has passed to rules for repealing Obamacare. 

The article reports:

“Roll call is here. The four Democrats voting for it were: Larry Kissell, Dan Boren, Mike McIntyre and Mike Ross. The two Republicans whose vote was recorded as “present” were Mike Fitzpatrick and Pete Sessions, which was the result of their bungled swearing in.”

The thing to remember as this process moves forward is that Obamacare is the signature legislative ‘success’ of the 111th Congress.  There are going to be powerful forces working against the repeal of Obamacare.  The first thing to avoid in watching this process is believing what you hear from the mainstream media.  Karl Rove posted an article at the Wall Street Journal yesterday describing the corruption written into Obamacare.  Under Obamacare, health insurance can be used as a weapon to punish enemies and reward friends.  Sound extreme?  Let’s look at a few examples given in the article:

“In September, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius began granting waivers to companies that provided workers “mini-med” coverage–low-cost plans with low annual limits on what the insurance will pay out.”

“According to the department’s website, the waivers cover 1,507,418 employees, of which more than a third (525,898) are union members. Yet unionized workers make up only 7% of the private work force. Whatever is going on here, a disproportionately high number of waivers are being granted to administration allies.”

“The AARP is also exempt from the new law’s $500,000 cap on executive compensation for insurance executives.”

“Nor will it (AARP) have to spend at least 85% of its Medigap premium dollars on medical claims, as Medicare Advantage plans must do; the AARP will be held to a far less restrictive 65%.”

At the end of the Wall Street Journal article, Mr. Rove wisely concludes:

“In a speech at the University of Iowa last March, the president heralded health-care reform as “a new set of rules that treats everybody honestly and treats everybody fairly.” Determining whether that is true will be another task for House Republicans. They have an obligation to look into this matter, and Mr. Obama can hardly object. It was former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, whom the president frequently quotes, who wrote in 1913 that sunlight “is the best of disinfectants.””

Michael Barone posted an interesting article at the Washington Examiner on Tuesday.  Michael Barone is the undisputed expert on voting districts, voting trends, which states to watch, etc.  The article he posted was about the age difference between Republican and Democrat Congressmen. 

The article points out:

“The average age of Republican House members in the new Congress convening today is 54.9, younger than the Republicans’ average age in the previous Congress, 56.5.  But the average age of House Democrats has risen, from 58 to 60.2.  That can be explained partly by the high turnover in the 2010 election.  Many younger Democrats, first elected in 2006 or 2008. fell by the wayside.  The old bulls from 65 percent-plus Democratic districts survived.  Meanwhile, many young Republican challengers won.”

“…The picture is similar on the Senate side of the Capitol, where the average age of Republicans is 61.4 and the average age of Democrats in 63.1.  That’s as wide a margin as in any Senate since the one produced by the election of 1982.”

This results in a situation where the leaders of the Democrat Party represent a time when big government was considered a good thing.  The American electorate is no longer convinced of that idea.  The Democrats in Congress will be in agreement with what has been the Obama agenda up until this point, but how will the voters treat them in the next election?  We are seeing major changes in the political arena of our country right now.  Will the ‘old guard’ defeat the reforms supported by the Tea Party or will we see true change in Congress?

I am not sure who came up with the brilliant idea to replace all incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent bulbs–it was a Democrat Congress, but President Bush signed it.  The law was called the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.  California has chosen to be ahead of the curve.

Yesterday’s Washington Times reports:

“The cost of illuminating your home is about to go up significantly. Most Americans take for granted that when they flip a switch, darkness immediately gives way to a warm, natural light. That’s no longer possible in California, where a regulation that took effect Jan. 1 only allows the sale of harsh, cold compact fluorescents above a certain wattage. Unless the new Congress takes action, the same rules will apply to the rest of the country, beginning next year.”

The law in California makes it illegal to sell newly manufactured cheap bulbs that produce a pleasing, natural light of 100 watts or more.  The new bulbs the regulation requires will cost anywhere from $2 to $10.  You could buy an old-fashioned 60-watt bill for as little as 29 cents!

The article concludes:

“Turning on a dim, harsh fluorescent light demonstrates “concern” for the environment. Forcing everyone to do the same shows an even higher degree of purported enlightenment on the part of lawmakers. Consumers are forced to pay this price as a “carbon” offering to Mother Earth in the hopes that she will favor us with colder weather. We can expect much of the absurdity across the Atlantic to happen here, unless this Congress returns to Americans the freedom to choose a real light bulb.”

The other problem with this change is that the Compact Fluorescent bulbs can be hazardous if they break.  They contain mercury, and there are very specific instructions for cleaning up the mess if one breaks.  The other problem will be people routinely throwing them out when they burn out–polluting landfills in ways that incandescent bulbs do not.  This is another example of the unintended consequences of a Congress that in the past few years has consistently overstepped its bounds.

The unintended consequences of the Obamacare bill keep piling up.  Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times reported that Blue Shield of California has asked for a significant rate hike in the coming year.  Some of the customers of Blue Shield of California will experience rate hikes of up to 59 per cent. 

The article reports:

“(Blue Shield spokesman Tom) Epstein said Blue Shield raised rates again Jan. 1 to pay for reforms under the national healthcare overhaul and a new state law that bars insurers from charging women more than men. (Some policyholders will pay less under the state gender law, while others will pay more.)

“A third round of hikes scheduled for March 1 comes in response to rising healthcare costs, he said. Those increases will average 6.5% and be as high as 18%.

“Some policyholders have seen their bills rise gradually over the last five months, while others will see the charges lumped together March 1.”

The national healthcare reform bill that Congress passed was not well thought out and was not a good bill.  We need to repeal it and start again.

Another aspect of the bill is the 3 percent tax on the sale of homes.  Money Talks News reported on this tax in September.  This tax will go into effect in January of 2013.  It is set up so that it ‘will only impact the wealthy’ and the average American will not be impacted by it.  Is anyone willing to make a small wager on how long it will be before that tax will include average Americans?  The problem with taxes is that they rarely go down–they tend to increase–not decrease. 

According to Money Talks News:

“In his recent guest column regarding the impact of the health care bill, Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center claimed that a 3.8 percent tax on all home sales was a part of the recently passed legislation. This is inaccurate and needs to be corrected. The truth about the bill is that if you sell your home for a profit above the capital gains threshold of $250,000 per individual or $500,000 per couple then you would be required to pay the additional 3.8 percent tax on any gain realized over this threshold.

“Most people who sell their homes will not be impacted by these new regulations. This is not a new tax on every seller, and that correction needs to be made. This tax is aimed at so-called “high earners” – if you do not fall into that category you will not pay any extra taxes upon the sale of your home.”

In the interest of full disclosure, I need to say that I will not be affected by this tax as it currently stands.  My fear is that as inflation kicks in (and Congress wants more money) the tax will begin to impact average Americans.  We also need to keep in mind that in some areas of the country, an elderly couple who has been living in their house for forty years and who is middle class would be in danger of having to pay the 3 per cent tax.

The job of the government is not to redistribute wealth–the job of the government is to get out of the way so that the creativity of the American people can create jobs and help all of us prosper.

As some countries around the world consider recognition of a Palestinian State, there are some things involved in that recognition that they should keep in mind.  I think (although I am not sure) that the goal here is peace in the Middle East.  If that is true, recognizing Palestine as a country at this point may not be realistic path to that goal.

Yesterday’s Jerusalem Post posted an article dealing with the current Israeli-Palestinian situation.  The article points out:

“Netanyahu bewailed what he said had become the Palestinian “three no’s”: No to recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, no to dropping their demand for a Palestinian refugee “right of return,” and no to agreed-upon security arrangements on the ground. The prime minister was making a reference to the Arab League’s Khartoum Resolution of September 1, 1967, and its “Three No’s”: “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.” Netanyahu, who informed the MKs that White House senior adviser Dennis Ross was due back later this week, said the Palestinians had shown no willingness to compromise on either substantive or procedural issues. They have shown “no movement,” he said.”

I will admit to being a rather simple person, but this seems very clear to me.  Why in the world would anyone recognize a nations that says it will not recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people and expect peace to follow?   How can I make peace with my neighbor if their goal is to drive me out of my house and take it over?  Does common sense exist when countries are dealing with the Middle East?

Aside from the obvious changing of the guard, there are some interesting things going on in Congress this year.  Yesterday The Hill‘s Blog Briefing Room posted an article about John Boehner’s response to Democrat’s requests not to repeal Obamacare.  The Senate’s top five Democrats sent a note to Representative Boehner vowing to block a House bill repealing healthcare reform.

According to the article, this is Representative Boehner’s reply:

“Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Murray and Stabenow:

“Thank you for reminding us – and the American people – of the backroom deal that you struck behind closed doors with ‘Big Pharma,’ resulting in bigger profits for the drug companies, and higher prescription drug costs for 33 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D, at a cost to the taxpayers of $42.6 billion.

“The House is going to pass legislation to repeal that now.  You’re welcome.

“- Speaker-Designate John Boehner’s Press Office”

Meanwhile, the American Thinker reported yesterday that Obamacare has stopped the construction at 45 physician owned hospitals nationwide.  Huh?  The article reports:

“Kenneth Artz of the Heartland Institute explains, “Section 6001 of the health care law effectively bans new physician-owned hospitals (POHs) from starting up, and it keeps existing ones from expanding.” Politico adds, “Friday [New Year’s Eve] marked the last day physician-owned hospitals could get Medicare certification covering their new or expanded hospitals, one of the latest provisions of the reform law to go into effect.””

Why is a healthcare bill attempting to control the growth of hospitals? 

The article further reports:

“This little-noticed but particularly eqregious aspect of Obamacare is, by all accounts, a concession to the powerful American Hospital Association (AHA), a supporter of Obamacare, which prefers to have its member hospitals operate without competition from hospitals owned by doctors.

“Dr, Michael Russell, president of Physician Hospitals of America, which has filed suit to try to stop this selective building-ban from going into effect, says, “There are so many regulations [in Obamacare] and they are so onerous and intrusive that we believe that the section [Section 6001] was deliberately designed so no physician owned hospital could successfully comply.””

Here’s another aspect of Obamacare–if it is repealed, thousands of construction workers will be able to go backk to work!  Hopefully, Congress has the backbone to do this!

Scott Johnson at Power Line posted a very interesting article yesterday about the murder of Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in Dubai last year.  The article links to a GQ article by Ronen Bergman about the killing.

The article points out the Dubai in its coverage of the murder failed to mention some basic parts of the events surrounding the killing:

“Until now, the authorities have established a clear, detailed timeline. By studying hundreds of hours of closed-circuit security footage, they have meticulously reconstructed the movements of the many characters involved in the unfolding drama. But when Al-Mabhouh arrives at the mall, the river of information suddenly goes dry. What did he do during the next four hours, which were to be the last of his life? Where did he go? With whom did he meet? The official report does not provide even a sketchy outline of the missing hours.

“According to Israeli intelligence sources, Al-Mabhouh met with a banker who was assisting him with various international weapons transactions, and with his regular contact from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, who flew in to coordinate the delivery of two large shipments of weapons to Hamas the following month. The Dubai police had good reason to gloss over this part of the narrative, if they were indeed aware of it. Providing details of Al-Mabhouh’s contacts would have been highly embarrassing to authorities eager to paint Dubai as a squeaky-clean international business center. It would also have served as a reminder that the victim of this cold-blooded Israeli execution had a fair amount of blood on his hands, raising inconvenient questions about why Al-Mabhouh was there in the first place–questions that the media largely forgot to ask in the furor that erupted after his assassination.”

The GQ article is a detailed explaination of the mission.  It shows where mistakes were made and the consequences of those mistakes.  It points out a very interesting fact about Israeli secret intelligence missions:

“When it comes to false identities and false passports, the Mossad has a unique problem, one that most Western intelligence services do not face. When the CIA or the British SIS (or MI6, as it is commonly known) send an operative into the field, they can usually provide him or her with a valid U.S. or U.K. passport issued in whatever false name and identity the individual will be using. But an Israeli spy cannot use an Israeli passport, since the most important targets for Israeli espionage are in countries that do not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. For this reason, the need for foreign documentation has always been an acute one in the Mossad, which has historically resolved this problem by forging what it needed. Naturally, this is done without the authorization of the countries involved.”

I don’t support ‘hit teams’ going into foreign countries and killing people they deem as evil, but I can easily understand why Israel thought this was necessary.   Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh (aside from killing two defenseless Israeli soldiers in 1989) has been financing and planning suicide bombings in Israel and the trafficking of huge amounts of rockets and sophisticated weaponry into Gaza, which have been used to devastating effect since the start of the second intifada in 2000.  By killing Al-Mabhouh, Israel probably saved a lot of lives.  Again, I don’t approve of assassinations of private citizens by foreign countries, but until the world takes terrorism seriously enough to deal with people who sell arms to terrorists, I am not sure there is an alternative.

On Friday, the Washington Examiner posted an article about the fact that the recent census showed that states with lower taxes have higher rates of population growth than states with higher taxes.  We have previously noted on this blog that when ‘millionaires taxes’ are put in place, millionaires leave the states where they are enacted.  The article at the Examiner shows the actual statistics on the migration to low-tax states. 

“Last Tuesday, my Examiner colleague Michael Barone did a good general breakdown of income tax rates versus population growth and found that 7 of the 9 states which have no income tax all grew higher than the national average while the 2 that didn’t grew fastest in their regions.”

This isn’t really a surprise.  It actually goes along with the idea that people, generally speaking, would like to keep as much of the money they earn as possible.  That is not really a hard concept to grasp.  It goes along with the idea that when the government taxes an activity you get less of it and when the government gives a tax break to an activity, you get more of it. 

The article has charts and graphs showing how all the states compare in taxes and growth.  It’s an amazing article.

The article concludes that there is a reason that Texas is responsible for creating half the new jobs in the country last year–low taxes.  Tort reform didn’t hurt either!

One of the arguments made in the lame-duck session of Congress for the passage of the START Treaty was that we needed a way to check on what the Russians were doing and, oh yeah, don’t worry about that silly little thing in the preamble about missile defense.  Well, that silly little thing has come back to haunt us.

Guy Benson at Townhall.com and Ed Morrissey at Hot Air are both reporting that the Russian Duma has begun its discussion on the START Treaty. 

Guy Benson at Townhall reports:

“The State Duma plans to confirm the link between the reduction of the strategic offensive arms and the restriction of antimissile defense systems’ deployment in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), signed between the US and Russia, Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Duma Committee on International Affairs says.

“”During the ratification of START in the US Congress the American lawmakers noted that the link between strategic offensive armed forces and antimissile defense systems is not juridically binding for the parties. They referred to the fact that this link was fixed only in the preamble of the document. Such an approach can be regarded as the US’ attempt to find an option to build up its strategic potential and the Russian lawmakers cannot agree with this,” Kosachev says.”

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reports:

“It is not surprising that there are differences in interpretation of the treaty between the Russian and the American side. Russia insisted on inserting missile defense provisions into the preamble, making it obvious that they viewed this provision as having some importance. Yet the White House has stated that it is non-binding. And to further complicate matters, the administration denied the Senate the opportunity to understand the dispute better, by refusing to share treaty negotiating documents. Now that the Senate has approved the treaty without first understanding how it would be implemented, the Russian Duma will attempt to modify the accord to impose missile defense restrictions — as critics of the accord predicted would happen.

“The START Treaty ratification process is already a mess. And it is a mess because the Obama administration was not candid about the meaning of the agreement. If the Duma alters the accord in an attempt to impose new restrictions on America’s defensive capabilities, the Obama administration will have a full-blown diplomatic incident on its hands.”

Whoops.  We were suckered by the Russians and the White House.  Let’s not let it happen again.

There are some real questions about the recent election in the Ivory Coast.  The current president, Laurent Gbagbo, has claimed that there was serious election fraud in the recent election. 

According to an article at Wire Update:

“Côte d’Ivoire’s Constitutional Council on Friday overturned Sunday’s run-off results and declares incumbent president Laurent Gbagbo as winner.”  

“…Goude and Gbagbo’s supporters want an international investigation to be conducted about the alleged election fraud. They said the results would validate the Ivorian Constitutional Commission’s ruling that declared Gbagbo the winner.”

The thing to understand here is that there were armed supporters of Gbagbo’s Muslim opponent, Alassane Ouatarra, who were asked to disarm before the election, but failed to comply.  When you look closely at what is happening here, it appears that the neighboring Muslim countries are attempted to set up a Muslim state in the Ivory Coast.  Unfortunately, most of the international community is coming down on the wrong side of this issue.

In recent years, America has certified elections that were seriously flawed–Venezuela is one recent example.  The situation in the Ivory Coast is not a result of a President who refuses to give up power–it is the result of a Muslim who wants to set up a Muslim state in the country.  When you consider the slaughter of Christians in other African countries controlled by Muslims, it might be a really good idea to keep President Gbagbo in office.