Byron York posted an article at the Washington Examiner yesterday wondering whether the Senate will have access to all of Elena Kagan’s papers during the confirmation process.  Mr. York reminds us that when John Roberts was examined, all of his work done at the Reagan White House Counsel’s Office during the 1980’s was provided to the Senate when they asked for it.  With that precedent set, it will be difficult to withhold Elena Kagan’s papers generated during her time in the Clinton White House Counsel’s Office in 1995 and1996. 

The only questionable item that I have come across in Ms. Kagan’s background is a controversy she was involved in while serving in the Clinton White House in 1996. 

“…the Clinton administration was accused of siding with a group of radical environmentalists locked in a standoff with federal agents in Oregon. Officials at the U.S. Forest Service suspected that a staffer at the White House Council on Environmental Quality tipped off the protesters about a coming federal crackdown.

“The situation drew the attention of Republicans on the House Committee on Natural Resources, who found that Kagan, in the White House Counsel’s Office, did little, if anything, to find or punish the leaker, even though that person had revealed confidential information that potentially endangered the lives of Forest Service agents. GOP investigators asked for Kagan’s notes on the matter at the time, but the White House refused, claiming executive privilege.”

It is not a surprise that a Supreme Court nominee of Barack Obama would be liberal.  The question is whether or not she believes in enforcing laws equally regardless of who is involved.

Wednesday’s Washington Examiner posted a commentary on the fact that defense contractor Northrop Grumman has decided to move its corporate headquarters from California to northern Virginia. 

The article states:

“This is a big win for the commonwealth, as Northrop employs more than 122,000 people worldwide, generated more than $32 billion in revenue last year, ranks as the fourth-largest defense contractor, and is the nation’s largest shipbuilder. The two spurned suitors have nobody but themselves to blame for their loss to Virginia.”

What were the determining factors in the decision?  Washington, D. C., offered $25 million in tax breaks, Maryland offered $22 million.  Virginia offered $14 million.  So why choose Virginia?  Simple.  Virginia has a 6 percent corporate tax rate (Maryland is 8.25, Washington, D. C., is 9).  While Virginia’s new governor, Bob McDonald, trimmed the state budget by $2 billion, Maryland’s governor, Martin O’Malley, instituted a tax on millionaires that resulted in many high-income people fleeing the state.  Maryland and Washington, D. C., have some of the same problems that caused Northrop Grumman to leave California.  Northrop Grumman has chosen Virginia because that state seems to be taking actions that will avoid those problems. 

As Greece erupts and America (and the IMF) send money, America moves in the direction of bigger government, more spending and higher tax burdens.  There is, however, a light at the end of the tunnel.  A. B. Stoddard posted an article at The Hill on Wesdnesday showing how Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey, is doing the things that will put his financially disastrous state budget back in the black.

Needless to say, the actions necessary to move the state from a deficit of $10.7 billion of a $29.3 billion budget to a balanced budget are not universally popular in the state.  The first thing Governor Christie did when he took office was declare a state of emergency.  He then signed an executive order froze spending and then proceeded to cut $13 billion in spending. 

The Teacher’s Unions are screaming that they are being mistreated–the have had to accept a salary freeze for a year and will now pay 1.5 percent of their healthcare insurance. 

According to the article:

“New Jersey, which has the highest unemployment in the region and highest taxes in the country, lost 121,000 jobs in the private sector in 2009 while adding 11,300 new education jobs. During the last eight years, K-12 enrollment rose just 3 percent while education jobs increased more than 16 percent. According to the Newark Star-Ledger, during the recession that has cost many residents their homes and jobs and scaled back hours and pay for the employed, teachers’ salaries rose by nearly 5 percent, double the rate of inflation.”

Property taxes rose 70 percent in the last ten years, and 1 percent of the taxpayers are paying 40 percent of the income tax in the state.  Needless to say, people who are high-earners, who own large houses, and who own businesses are fleeing the state.

Governor Christie has stated that he does not care about re-elected.  It will be interesting to see when the time comes whether or not the people of New Jersey appreciate or understand what he is doing to save the state from itself.

Today’s New York Daily News reports that Congress has cut the amount of money to be spend in New York City to prevent terrorism.  The Department of Homeland Security is cutting transit funding on anti-terrorism from $153 million to $111 million.  Money to protect the port of New York City is being cut from $45 million to $33.8 million.

According to the article:

“The Homeland Security Department is trying to duck the blame for the subway part of the insanity, saying that the cut for New York only reflects an overall transit security cut by Congress.

But all Congress did was approve the funding request from the White House, which was down from $400 million to $250 million.”

I am totally in favor of any move that will cut government spending.  However, when you consider that the first duty of government is to protect its citizens, I am really beginning to wonder about the priorities of this administration.  As our budget deficit soars with new spending on healthcare, energy programs, and other non-defense items, we find ourselves the target of a terrorist movement that wants to eliminate us.  It we don’t successfully deal with the terrorists, the rest won’t really matter very much.

The disconnect between voters and the people they have previously elected is growing.  The majority of Americans opposed the recent healthcare reform bill, and many contacted their Congressmen to tell them they were opposed.  The bill passed anyway.  Well, Massachusetts has similar problems.

Yesterday Rasmussen Reports released a poll showing that 70 per cent of Massachusetts voters favor denying public benefits to illegal immigrants.  A law to do that was introduced into the Massachusetts state legislature recently, and was defeated by a 75 to 82 vote.

The Rasmussen group also polled Massachusetts residents regarding the illegal immigration law recently passed in Arizona.  Forty-one per cent of Massachusetts voters approve of the law.  Governor Patrick has stated that if the legislature of Massachusetts passed a law similar to the one passed in Arizona, he would veto it. 

According to the article:

“But 52% of Democratic voters favor a boycott of Arizona, while 74% of Republicans and 66% of unaffiliateds oppose it.

“When it comes to having a law like Arizona’s, however, 64% of GOP voters are in favor of it, but 68%of Democrats are opposed. Among unaffiliated voters in Massachusetts, 46% favor such a law, while 39% oppose it.”

I guess I just don’t understand the problem.  If I am stopped by a policeman for some reason, I expect to have to show some sort of ID.  I don’t consider that an imposition–I consider it a given.  If we are not going to enforce our current immigration laws, why do we have them?

Last year, President Obama signed an executive order granting the international police agency INTERPOL the ability to operate inside the United States without the kind of restraints placed on American law enforcement agencies.  INTERPOL is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Its staff and offices at the Department of Justice cannot be searched, and its files cannot be seized.  It sounds harmless enough to those of us who follow the law, but the potential for misuse is rather obvious.  Here is an example.

CBN News is reporting today on the story of Shahram Homayoun, an Iranian who fled his country 19 years ago because he feared for his life because he supported democracy and human rights. 

According to the article:

“Homayoun owns a satellite television network in L.A. called Channel One TV. He broadcasts pro-democracy programming into Iran on a daily basis.

“Now Iranian officials want to silence him — permanently. A prosecutor in the Iranian city of Shiraz recently issued an arrest warrant against Homayoun on charges of terrorism.”  

Mr. Homayoun has stated that he has never called for violence against the regime in Iran.  He simply promotes the idea of democracy.  The Iranian regime alerted INTERPOL to Mr. Homayoun as a terrorist.  Because of this alert, all countries that are members of INTERPOL were notified of his ‘terrorism.’   Because of this alert, his bank accounts have been closed, and he has not been allowed to open new accounts.  This action by the Iranian government may eventually result in the shutting down of his pro-democracy network.  If that happens, the Iranian government has successfuly curtailed free speech in America.  If tyrannical regimes begin to use INTERPOL as an extension of their tyranny, no one is safe.

I need to begin this article by saying that I regret any civilian casualties in any war, but also that I understand that those casualties are a part of war.  Dropping two atomic bombs on Japan caused untold civilian casualties, but it also saved thousands of soldiers and ended a war.  We need to keep this in mind as we move forward in the war on terror.

The source of this article is a Navy Times article posted today.  There is a proposal currently circulating in the International Security Assistance Force in Kubal, Afghanistan, to award a medal for “courageous restraint” for holding fire to save civilian lives.  Since we are dealing with an enemy who historically hides among the civilian population, this is a sure way to ensure that more United States and allied soldiers get killed. 

According to the article:

“The self-protections built into the rules of engagement are clear, and the decision to return fire must be made instantly based on training and the threat,” said Joe Davis, a spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. “The enemy already hides among noncombatants, and targets them, too. The creation of such an award will only embolden their actions and put more American and noncombatant lives in jeopardy. Let’s not rush to create something that no one wants to present posthumously.”

The way to win the war in Afghanistan is to fight it, win it, and get it over with.  Anything else kills more soldiers, more civilians, and gives the terrorists a victory.  Someone needs to send the person who came up with the idea of this medal into battle and tell him he can’t shoot at the enemy.  That is what this medal is telling our soldiers.

Today’s Boston Herald reported that Richard Ross has been elected in a special election to fill Scott Brown’s vacant seat in the Massachusetts state Senate.  The Republicans will now retain their five seats in the forty-seat Senate.

This is not a move away from being a blue state–the seat was held by Scott Brown, also a Republican.  However, this is an indication that Scott Brown’s election to the United States Senate may not have been a fluke.  In the coming November election, there will still be some uncontested Democrats running for office, but there will also be Republican primary elections for some offices late this summer.  That is an indication that Massachusetts may be developing a stronger Republican Party.  A one-party state is not a healthy situation, regardless of which party is in charge.  A two-party state will tend to govern is a way that includes the best ideas from both parties and will tend to be more successful.

Congratulations and best wishes to Mr. Ross.

I suppose it isn’t news that we have lost civility, but sometimes I am surprised by the total lack of class exhibited by some Americans.  Fox News reported yesterday that the 75-foot memorial cross in the Mojave Desert has been stolen.  The cross was erected in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to honor the soldiers who died in World War I.  Recently, the ACLU challenged its right to be there (claiming it represented the establishment of religion).  The case went to the Supreme Court, where the Court declared the cross was legal.  However, the Court referred the case back to a lower court for further review.  The cross was to be covered with a wooden box or a tarp until that review was completed. 

According to the article:

“The Liberty Institute is now offering a $25,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction in the case, and the National Park Service has established a tip hotline seeking information leading to the recovery of the cross. Anyone with information is asked to contact the Park Service at (760) 252-6120.”

This is equivalent to desecrating a grave.  This cross was set in place to honor the soldiers who died in World War I.  In 1934, placing a cross on a grave was the accepted way to honor the dead.  This is not an establishment of Christianity or a slight to the soldiers who were not Christian.  Tradition places a cross on soldier’s graves.  There are fields of crosses in France to honor the Americans who died in World War II.

Regardless of how you feel about a cross as a memorial, the cutting down and stealing of the cross is inexcusable.  I hope that when the people who did this are found, they are dealt with severely.

Today’s Washington Examiner posted an editorial about the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.  The editorial points out two areas that the editors feel should be explored in the confirmation hearings.

• Elena Kagan was involved in the preparation of the Citizen’s United case which was argued before the Supreme Court.  The question in the case was whether the government could criminalize speech that criticized a public official who was running for office 60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary.  The question needs to be asked as to whether or not Ms. Kagan believes in the censorship of political speech.
• As dean of Harvard Law School, Ms. Kagan opposed military recruiting on campus.  She did this because she was opposed to the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy of the military and felt that homosexuals should be able to serve openly in the military.  We are in a time of war, and I really am concerned about naming a Supreme Court Justice who has opposed the military in the past.

Having said all this, I believe that the President has the right to name his Supreme Court Justices.  Unless there is some horrible hidden fact that has not yet surfaced, I think Elena Kagan should be confirmed.  I also think that the people who favor more conservative judges should use her hearings to show the difference between conservative and liberal judges.  Knowing his political background, it would be unrealistic to expect President Obama to appoint a conservative judge.  The best those of us who are conservative can hope for is a qualified, fair-minded appointee.  I believe Elena Kagan fits that description.  

Monday’s Detroit News posted a story entitled “Landscapers Find Workers Choosing Jobless Pay.”  The article explains that Michigan has the nation’s highest unemployment rate, and some of its residents are rejecting job offers in order to continue collecting unemployment.  The landscaping industry is finding that some workers are choosing to stay home and collect unemployment rather than working (and paying the expenses involved in working–travel, gas, meals, etc.). 

The average landscaper earns about $ 12 per hour.  That is a $ 480 paycheck per week.  Unemployment pays $ 255, a difference of $ 225.  After federal and state taxes are deducted, the landscaper earns $ 350 a week–$ 95 less than the unemployment check.

Statistics show that an unemployed person in Michigan collects unemployment for an average of 19.4 weeks.  Last year that average was 15 weeks.  Unemployment benefits last for up to 26 weeks.  When state unemployment benefits run out, an unemployed person can apply for extended federal benefits that increase the total time unemployment can be collected to a maximum of 99 weeks.  That’s almost two years!

Another part of this picture is the fact that 15 percent of Michigan’s economy is underground.  No one knows how many of the people collecting unemployment are working ‘under the table.’ 

If the goal of paying unemployment is to help people financially while encouraging them to find jobs, it may be that extending unemployment benefits is counterproductive.

In May of 2009, In Tech, a website posted from the research triangle in North Carolina, published an article about natural underwater oil seepage.  The article points out that according to researchers at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), the amount of oil that seeps from the ocean floor off Santa Barbara, California, is the equivalent to from 8 to 80 times the amount of the Exxon Valdez spill.  This is a natural occurrence–there are no tankers or oil rigs involved.  The question is, “How does mother nature deal with this?”  Why isn’t the area a mess?”

According to the article:

“There is an oil spill everyday at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara, where 20-25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years.

“Earlier research by Reddy and Valentine at the site found microbes were capable of degrading a significant portion of the oil molecules as they traveled from the reservoir to the ocean bottom, and that once the oil floated to sea surface, about 10% of the molecules evaporated within minutes.” 

WHOI marine chemist Chris Reddy and UCSB’s Dave Valentine are studying the oil seepage at Coal Oil Point (COP) to find out how nature has dealt with this amount of oil.  They have used the Alvin submersible and its support vessel Atlantis to collect sediment samples in the area.

The scientists don’t have an answer yet, but the studies continue.  The work they are doing may prevent future environmental damage from the kind of accident that we have recently had in the Gulf of Mexico.  We need to remember that although there are risks associated with off-shore drilling, the safety factor is much better than it was 20 years ago.  If we can copy mother nature’s way of dealing with the rare accidents that will happen, we can make off-shore drilling environmentally safe.

This is a picture of country music superstar Toby Keith taken recently at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan where he was visiting our troops.  Thank you, Mr. Keith, for taking the time to make a difference in the lives of those who protect our freedom.  Thank you also to the soldiers who protect our freedom.

CNS News posted an Associated Press story today about a seemingly minor change that has been made by the National Mediation Board in the way companies unionize.  On Monday, the Obama Administration changed a 76-year old rule regarding union elections.  Under the new rule, a company would recognize a union if a simple majority of workers who cast ballots favored organizing a union.  Under the previous law, a majority of the total number of workers was needed–if a worker did not cast a ballot, it was counted as a ‘no’ vote. 

According to the article:

“The change puts the airline and railroad industries under the same procedures as most other companies, which are overseen by the National Labor Relations Board.” 

The unions are hoping to use to new rule to organize unions in some of the major airlines.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  The recent recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board was supposed to pave the wave for ‘card check’ without having to go through the legislative process.  It may be possible that with this new rule in effect, card check may not be necessary.

The information for this story comes from articles at CBN News and Examiner.com about the ousting of Senator Bob Bennett from the Utah Republican Primary Election for the Senate.  Senator Bennett had been in the Senate for three terms.  He was defeated at the state’s Republican convention.  The Tea Party movement claims credit for his defeat.

There are a few things that have not been mentioned often in the major media outlets.  According to the Examiner:

“Immigration played a role in his defeat as he had supported comprehensive immigration reform that included amnesty from identity theft and a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens.”

Senator Bennett had also voted for two bailout programs and attempted a bi-partisan healthcare reform bill.  According to CBN News:

“”Looking back on them, with one or two very minor exceptions, I wouldn’t have cast any of them any differently,” Bennett said. “Even if I had known at the time they were going to cost me my career.””

My comment on that statement is very simple.  When the Founding Fathers put together the government of America, they did not want Congress to become a career.  The plan was that ordinary citizens would come to Washington, serve in Congress for a few years, then return to their states and live under the laws that they had passed.  This is the principle we need to rediscover.

One of the most striking things about President Obama’s foreign policy is the way he treats the friends of America and the way he treats the enemies of America.  Some of the friends who have been disappointed in their relationship with America are Poland and the Czech Republic, who were denied a missile defence system they had been promised under President Bush, Britian, who was simply not given the respect it deserved as a long-time friend, and Israel, who has been asked to make unreasonable concessions in the quest for peace.  I have no idea how the Czechs and Polish are handling this, but American Jews are not happy with the Obama Administration.

Yesterday the Israel National News reported a McLaughlin Group poll which found that although 42 percent of American Jews said that they would vote to re-elect President Obama, 46 percent said that they would consider voting for someone else.  12 percent refused to answer the question or said that they did not know.  Polls are taken all the time and generally are not all that revealing, but when you consider that 78 percent of American Jews voted for President Obama, that is quite a change. 

The article reported:

“The poll showed that key voter segments including Orthodox/Hassidic voters, Conservative voters, voters who have friends and family in Israel and those who have been to Israel, are all more likely to consider voting for someone other than Obama.”

The Jewish-American community was one of the strongest voting blocs to support President Obama in 2008.  It will be interesting to see if the results of this poll are still relevant in 2012.  As much as I hate to see politics play a part in the ‘peace process’, if politics causes us to support Israel in its efforts to continue to exist, I would be fine with that.

Fred Barnes has a post in the Washington Examiner today about the differences that have arisen over the years between pay and benefits in the public and private sectors.  As public sector unions have become more powerful, the salaries and benefits of public sector employees have grown much faster and much larger than their private sector counterparts.  The public sector does not have to make a profit, and generally it is not examined too closely to see how much individuals are paid or the benefits they receive.  The link above will give you information on some of the problems union pensions and benefits are causing in various states.  But I want to look at a different aspect of this.

Union membership in the public sector in 2009 was 37.4 percent.  In the private sector, union membership in 2009 was 7.2 percent.  Therefore, it seems to me that if you wanted to increase the number of union members (and the power of unions), all you have to do is increase the number of public sector workers.  At this point I would like to remind you that the healthcare bill includes a provision for 17,000 additional Internal Revenue Agents (future union members?).  I would also like to mention that the most frequent visitor to the White House during the Obama Administration has been Andy Stern, the President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) which has 2.2 million members. 

The divide between the wages and benefits paid in the public versus the private sector is important for a number of reasons:

• The wages and benefits paid in the public sector are paid by the people working in the private sector.
• As the public sector increases, the private sector decreases, and the economy contracts.
• At some point, the private sector is going to rebel against the wages they are paying and the benefits they are granting–particularly when those wages and benefits are compared to what they are paid.
• The private sector has moved away from unionization.  As the public sector unions become more powerful, there may be a tendency to strongarm private companies into unionizing (card check through the NLRB rather than legislation?).

At any rate, the growth of salaries and benefits in the public sector needs to be checked or we will see a number of states going bankrupt.  Much of the stimulus money was paid to states to avoid a financial crisis last year.  This year they will have to deal with the problem themselves.  So far, New Jersey is the only state actually trying to find a solution.

Please follow this link to an article at NewsRealBlog posted today.  The article deals with the acceptance by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in the United States of a Muslim practice against women.   The practice is watered down, but is still approved by the AAP.  I understand the concept of reaching out to other cultures that choose to make their homes in America, but I believe we need to draw the line occassionally as to what we will permit.  I believe this is one of those times.  We cannot allow this practice in this country.  It is a betrayal of the idea that a doctor is there to heal.  It is a betrayal of the trust little girls place in their parents and in their doctors.  It needs to be made illegal and anyone who practices it needs to be arrested.

On Thursday, May 6, Rich Trzupek posted an article about the Cape Wind Farm.  Since this seems to be moving ahead, I thought I would print some of the objections from the right and from the left.  Mr. Trzupek posted the article at FrontPageMag.com, which is a website run by David Horowitz, a former 60’s radical, now a conservative. 

In the article, Mr. Trzupek cites Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s statement about the wind farm,  “It’s a boondoggle of the worst kind. It’s going to cost the people of Massachusetts $4 billion over the next 20 years in extra costs.”  Mr. Kennedy is an environmental lawyer that you would expect to support ‘green’ energy.  Mr. Trzupek agrees with the above statement. 

The article further states:

“I recently asked an energy executive why his company was investing in wind-power so heavily, when we both know it doesn’t make any economic sense to do so. His reply was that it’s all about the government subsidies. Once those run out, they intend to forgo any further – very expensive – maintenance, run the things till they break down and then forget about them. Given the high cost of wind power, and the fact that you have to have an equivalent amount of fossil power ready to back up wind energy (since the wind doesn’t blow all the time outside of the halls of Congress) it’s reasonable to assume that this fellow isn’t the only person in the energy industry thinking along such lines.”

I think all of us would like to see cleaner, cheaper energy, but this is not the way to go.  Please follow the link to the article referenced here to read how campaign money is influencing the government subsidies of the Cape Wind Farm.  This is a true example of “follow the money.”  Unfortunately it is also a true example of how to take away money from the taxpayers and the consumers of electricity.

‘Meanwhile, in Nashville’ is the headlline of an editorial posted at Investors.com yesterday.  The editorial deals with the way the major news stories are being dealt with by the mainstream media. 

The editorial points out:

“It’s getting obvious that that’s the pattern: A parallel example is in the media coverage of combat deaths in Afghanistan. During the Bush years, the media reported deaths of soldiers daily because it advanced an anti-war agenda. With President Obama now at the helm, they’ve dropped coverage.

“A look at the Los Angeles Times’ oil spill coverage, for one, shows birds featured daily in its blog and paper while the 11 oil platform workers have barely registered. On the blog, the news of the deaths wasn’t acknowledged until May 5, eight days after the workers’ employer identified them in a memorial Web site.

“Is this important? Yes. Regardless of the worries about the birds, the workers’ deaths are more tragic and have more implications for society. But as people, they hardly serve an agenda.”

While the news was focused on the birds impacted by the oil spill, Nashville, Tennessee, suffered its worst flood in 500 years.  The death toll is still climbing, and the economic impact will be at least $1.5 billion for the region.  It broke my heart to hear the tale of someone in a canoe being able to paddle across the stage of the Ryman Auditorium at the Grand Ole Opry.  The Associated Press covered the story well, but the major newspapers buried the coverage.  Tennessee must have wondered if it was still part of the United States.

It is obvious that as a very ‘busy’ society; we don’t always have the time to pay close attention to what is going on around us.  The news–24-hour news cycle, newspapers, radio, television, internet–should be able to help us with that.  However, it is the responsibility of journalism to report news.  One of the reasons for the explosion of the internet blogs is that the regular news outlets have traded news for manipulation of the public.  A picture of an oil-soaked bird is much more friendly to their cause than a flood in Tennessee or the deaths that occurred when the oil rig exploded.  All are important; it would be nice if all of these things received coverage. 

Terrorist activities within the United States have caused many people to want to take another look at how we Mirandize prisoners.  Charles Krauthammer at the National Review posted a reasonable suggestion yesterday.

Mr. Krauthammer points out that under the public-safety exception in the Miranda Rights law, a suspect does not have to be read his Miranda rights immediately.  The purpose of reading someone his Miranda rights is to ensure that any information obtained from the suspect is admissible in court. 

Mr. Krauthammer points out:

“In this case, however, Miranda warnings were superfluous. Shahzad had confessed to the car-bombing attempt while being interrogated under the public-safety exception. That’s admissible evidence. Plus, he left a treasure trove of physical evidence all over the place — which is how we caught him in two days.”

The thing to remember in dealing with terrorism is that any information a captured terrorist gives out is time-sensitive.  It is fairly easy for loosely-constructed terrorism cells to move people and camps as soon as one of their members has been captured.

Let me be clear.  I am not in favor of mistreating people we arrest.  However, when someone admits or is seen carrying out a terrorist act (as in the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber), I think we need to be more concerned about public safety than we are about reading a person his Miranda rights.  Being a terrorist should change the rules–even in America.

Remember being told that if the healthcare reform bill passed, those of us who like their current health insurance would be allowed to keep it?  Well, maybe.  Power Line reported yesterday on some of the information in the subpoenaed documents supplied to Congress by AT&T, Verizon, and other companies.  Remember that when AT&T released information on how much the healthcare reform bill would cost them as a company, Democratic Representatives Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak scheduled a hearing for the corporate officials of these companies to testify.  The hearings were cancelled when someone explained to the Representatives that the SEC required the companies to release the information at the time it was released.  But the documents were forwarded. 

The opening sentence of the Power Line article states:

“Fortune senior editor Shawn Tully covers some of the deep secrets of Obamacare found in the corporate documents subpoenaed by Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak. In the words of the headline: “Documents reveal AT&T, Verizon, others, thought about dropping employer-sponsored benefits.” “

In simple terms, this means that as the healthcare reform takes effect, companies may decide that it is cheaper to pay the fine for not insuring workers than it is to insure them.  At this point, a large number of people will be dumped into the federal healthcare system, and we will begin to see the beginning of the end of private health insurance.  This is stealth national health insurance.

November 2010 is approaching fast.  We need to vote out of office anyone who voted to end our private health insurance by supporting the healthcare reform bill.  The bill needs to be repealed and replaced by something that would actually lower costs and help Americans who have good health insurance keep the policies they have.  Remember REPEAL AND REPLACE will only be possible with a new Congress.

I have extremely mixed emotions about the Cape Wind project.  Theoretically wind farms are a great idea, but somehow, very few countries that have used them have found them to be economically feasible.  Spain has begun to abandon its wind program due to the cost of wind energy and the need for backup power; the Dutch are having a problem with sinking wind turbines in three of their offshore wind farms.  I have also heard concerns that when the government subsidies for wind power run out, the wind mills will be allowed to run until they break and then left as an unmaintained eyesore.  Again, I have mixed emotions.

CNS News reports today that National Grid, the electric company that supplies much of the electricity to Massachusetts, has agreed to buy power from the Cape Wind Farm. 

According to the article:

“Under the 15-year contract, National Grid would pay 20.7 cents per kilowatt hour starting in 2013 for electricity purchased from the 130-turbine Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound.”

The article further states:

“The cost of electricity from conventional sources is about 9 cents per kilowatt hour. The utility said the deal will add about $1.50 the average customer’s monthly electricity bill in 2013.”

I live in an all-electric house.  Somehow I think my electric bill is destined to go up more than $1.50 per month.  I think we need more refining of the science of wind-generated electricity.

It is little bit ironic to see the Democrats in Congress talking about extending the Bush tax cuts before the August recess (read before the November election).  The Hill today reported that Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) would like to extend some of the Bush tax cuts before the August recess.  These were the tax cuts that the Democrats continually labeled “tax cuts for the rich.”  Well, at some point the Democrats have had an Epiphany and realized that a large part of those “tax cuts for the rich” were actually for the middle class.  If those tax cuts expire, almost everyone’s taxes will go up and the voters might actually notice that.  Whoops.  Please take a look at the chart below.

This picture, from the webite of Heritage.org illustrates the Laffer Curve.  Simply put, the Laffer Curve illustrates the fact that when you lower taxes, revenue goes up.  Our problem is not that our taxes are too low; our problem is that we are spending too much.

At any rate, it will be interesting to see what Congress does with the “tax cuts for the rich.”

The Philadelphia Daily News posted an article today comparing the new immigration law in Arizona to an executive order that went into effect in Philadelphia in November.  The article is written by Stu Bykofsky who ends it with these words:

“A later amendment (to the Arizona law) makes it clear that questioning can follow only a “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” Example: A stop for a traffic violation where even a white gringo like me must produce ID.”

The first thing a policeman asks for when he stops you for any reason is your license and registration.  Americans routinely show identification to buy liquor or cigarettes, to board airplanes, to be admitted to certain clubs, and to be admitted to x-rated movies.  It really is not drastic to ask someone stopped for a reason to produce valid ID.

I am sure many of the illegals in Arizona are simply hard workers looking for a better life, but unfortunately they also include drug dealers, gang members and other undesirables.  We have the right to keep the criminals out of our country.  Unfortunately, checking ID’s and closing the border are the only logical ways to do that.