The sources for this article are an article at Power Line yesterday and an article at Hot Air yesterday.  Recently, Amnesty International suspended Gita Sahgal, one of its senior officials in London, for stating that the group’s collaboration with Moazzem Begg, a former Guantanamo detainee, is damaging to the reputation of the group. 

According to Power Line:

“Sahgal pointed out that “to be appearing on platforms with Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban, whom we treat as a human rights defender, is a gross error of judgment.” (And worse, I would have thought)”

The article further states:

“Following Sahgal’s suspension for criticizing Amnesty International’s alliance with Begg, supporters petitioned the organization on her behalf. That led to Cardone’s spirited defense of Begg. He argued that Begg advocates detainees’ due process rights within “the same framework of universal human rights standards that we are promoting,” Attempting to reconcile this extraordinary claim with Begg’s association with violent jihad, Cardone asserted that advocacy of “jihad in self defence” is not antithetical to human rights.”

Oh my.  Hot Air states it a little more forcefully:

“In response to the petition, AI Secretary-General Claudio Cordone has issued a letter in vigorous defense of AI’s collaboration with Begg and Cageprisoners. Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism has the story, here. In the letter, Cordone states AI’s position outright: advocacy of “jihad in self defence” is not antithetical to human rights. That Islamists reserve unto themselves the right to determine when Islam is, as they put it, “under siege,” and when, therefore, forcible jihad is justified, is plainly of no concern — only actions America’s self-defense are worthy of condemnation.”

It seems as if Amnesty International has lost its way.  Human rights are totally in the eye of the beholder–murder may not be an abuse of human rights depending on who is doing it.  It is sad to see an organization that is supposed to support human rights condoning the murder of innocent people.

Yesterday at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey posted an article about too much state (or city) government.  It seems as if we are surrounded by government entities that want to tell us how to live.  The example in the article was frothy cocktails, considered dangerous by several states.  Yes, you read that right.  On January 19, 2010, a New York cocktail hot spot had to take the ‘Earl Grey MarTEAni’ off the menu because it included raw egg white.  (Just to clear this up, a comment at Hot Air from a chef explained that the acid in the citrus in a cocktail containing raw egg white will neutralize any bacteria.)  The cocktail menu explained that the drink had raw egg white, the ‘standard raw egg white warning’ was also in the menu, and the cocktail was prepared in front of the patron.  The health department complained that the patron was not also told verbally.

The health department eventually backed off (after threatening court action and other serious penalties), and the cocktail is again on the menu.

Frankly, even though I don’t drink I am offended by this kind of silliness on the part of state or local government.  Don’t they have anything better to do?  How many people are paid to go into bars and see what is in the drinks and if they are explained to the patrons verbally? 

I’m retired now.  I babysit grandchildren, but I do have some time on my hands, so I would like to volunteer for the Font Police.  “Who (or what) are the Font Police?”, you innocently ask.  They will eventually be part of the new healthcare reform bill recently passed.  According to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, included in the healthcare reform bill was a provision demanding that every restaurant with 20 or more locations will have to comply with a national standard of menu labeling which includes calorie information on the menu.

According to the article:

“”The nutrition information is right on the menu or menu board next to the name of the menu item, rather than in a pamphlet or in tiny print on a poster, so that consumers can see it when they are making ordering decisions,” says Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, who wrote the provision.”

I figure it will be just a matter of time before they send out the Font Police to make sure the calorie information is big enough.  Since I am a former office manager with years of typing and desktop publishing experience, I feel that my talents would be a real benefit to the Font Police, and I would like to join them.  I would also like to mention that after the taxes that will have to be passed to pay for the Obama Agenda, none of us will have the money to go out to dinner anyway, so the whole question of putting calories on the menu is moot.  Ed Morrissey mentions in his article that as a diabetic, he has very simple ways of figuring calories when he goes out to dinner, and none of the necessitate the Font Police!

Please read the entire article at Hot Air.  Ed Morrissey points out some of the problems with what may be a well-intentioned idea.  He also points out the question of federal jurisdiction if a restaurant only does business in one state.  This is a growth and jobs killer included in a bill that is also a growth and jobs killer.  Please remember in November to remove anyone from office who voted for this awful bill.  Repeal and Replace.  Let’s elect people who will do that.

This chart shows one of many reasons unemployment will remain high.  This chart is from Hot Air on March 31.  Ed Morrissey wrote the article that includes it.  In the article, he points out that right now federal employees make more than their counterparts in the private sector and recieve better benefits (our taxes pay these wages and benefits, which were negotiated by public-sector unions).  Generally speaking, the government does not lay off employees in a recession to the degree that the private sector does (if at all).  Public employees continue to lobby for bigger government and better benefits–public-sector pension benefits are causing major fiscal problems in a number of states right now.  We have forgotten that the government is supposed to work for us, and now, in the current economy, we are all working for the government and not being paid for it!

Today’s Washington Post posted an article by Charles Krauthammer with his observations on the foreign policy of the Obama Administration during their first year (or so) in office.  When you list all of it, it really doesn’t seem to make much sense.

We begin with the return of the bust of Winston Churchill bust to Britain.  Mr. Krauthammer suggests that it simply could have been moved elsewhere rather than shipped home.  It has gotten worse.  Last month, Hillary Clinton suggested that Britian return the Falkland Islands to Argentina.  Mr. Krauthammer details the history:

“In 1982, Argentina’s military junta invaded the (British) Falkland Islands. The generals thought the British, having long lost their taste for foreign lands, would let it pass. Besides, the Falklands have uncountably more sheep than people. They underestimated Margaret Thatcher (the Argentines, that is, not the sheep). She was not about to permit the conquest of a people whose political allegiance and ethnic ties are to Britain. She dispatched the navy. Britannia took it back.”

First of all, the allegiance of the residents is to Britain.  They choose not be a part of the uncertainties of politics and political fortunes in Argentina.  Second of all, why in the world would we comment on a twenty-plus-year-old event that did not effect us?  It’s almost as if we are picking a fight.

President Obama reneged on our promise to Poland and the Czech Republic to provide them with a missile shield (not to mention that the missile shield would boost our national security also).  In Honduras we supported a would-be dictator rather than uphold their constitution.  He is visiting China and Indonesia and not visiting India (an ally).  President Obama may be conducting foreign policy, but I am not sure it is American foreign policy.   

This article is based on a Washington Times commentary by Dave Harbour, commissioner emeritus of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners,a retired member of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, and publisher of northerngaspipelines.com; and a National Review article by Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large of NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE and a visting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.  Both articles provide an explanation of what the changes in offshore drilling policy made by President Obama will do.

Mr. Harbour points out in the Washington Times commentary:

“At this time of domestic travail, it makes imminent sense to develop domestic energy wealth using American workers. To minimize our resource potential is suicidal econ- omically. The Obama-Salazar announcement last week further weakens our country as environmental groups feign outrage. Why? First, the administration has, in effect, reinstated much of the moratoria area that Congress and the president released following the great oil price rise in August 2008. It has effectively renewed moratoria by canceling the lease-sale programs of the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) and giving lip service to opening up other areas by planning to study them, not develop them. Second, what federal lands are available are only somewhat available. Just as a goose thinks it is being fed when the farmer is fattening it for slaughter, the administration talks about a balanced energy program while calculating destruction of the golden egg.”

Similar thoughts are echoed by Jonah Goldberg in the National Review article:

“Back when oil cost $140 per barrel, Pres. George W. Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore oil drilling. Once elected, Obama quietly reinstated it. Since then, Obama’s Interior Department has been doing just about everything it can to slow, hamper, and prevent oil and gas exploration in the U.S. and offshore. There’s no reason to believe the administration won’t keep doing that. Besides, Obama’s announcement actually bans more oil and gas reserves from exploration than it opens up: nothing in the Pacific, nothing in the western Gulf of Mexico, nothing in southern Alaska — all promising areas.”

Expanding ethanol made from corn is not the answer–it drives up food prices around the world and is generally not efficient.  What America needs right now is an intelligent domestic energy policy.  Unfortunately, as long as President Obama is in the White House and Ken Salazar is Secretary of the Interior, that is highly unlikely.  Please remember as you pay your taxes this month and watch unemployment lines grow (the boost in jobs this month was census workers, government workers and temporary jobs), that America has the resources to come out of this recession.  We also have a President, his administration, and Congress preventing us from using those resources.

Yesterday, SRN News reported that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has instituted its first set of price controls on the health insurance industry.  The article states:

“Insurance Commissioner Joseph Murphy said he had rejected 235 of 274 proposed rate increases because they included “excessive increases and rates unreasonable relative to the benefits provided.””

The insurers have responded by stating that caps on the premiums they charge are only justified if their are also caps on the costs that the health care providers–doctors, hospitals, etc.– charge them.  The article further points out:

“The announcement had political overtones: Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, is seeking re-election this fall against a field that includes Republican Charles Baker, the former president of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care.

“Patrick is staking himself out as the guardian of small businesses and middle-class voters, and trying to cast Baker as an industry protector. The governor argues that small businesses are limiting their hiring because they cannot cope with double-digit health care premium increases.”

Health insurance premiums are part of a much bigger picture.  Health insurance (and other types of insurance) are based on actuary tables.  This is a business model that has worked well for a considerable amount of time.  In contrast, the ‘business model’ of government control or takeover of a private industry is one that has almost always been a disaster–see AMTRAK, the US Post Office (in contrast to FedEx and UPS), etc.

The rejection of rate increases needed by insurance companies (partially needed due to the lack of tort reform, the lack of competition across state lines, and the fact that hospitals and doctors are charging private patients more because government reimbursements under Medicare and Medicaid are totally insufficient) will lead to less healthcare.  Even the most dedicated doctor is not going to keep his office open if he is continually losing money.  If the insurance companies cannot get the premiums they need to stay in business, they have no incentive to remain in business.  At that point, we have government health insurance, which will result in less quality healthcare for everyone.

This is a link to the American Thinker article posted today about Congressional Representative Hank Johnson’s (D-GA) comment to Admiral Robert Willard, head of the U.S. Pacific fleet, in response to the Admiral stating the plan for an increase in American military presence on the island of Guam.  The article includes the video of the exchange.

“My fear is that the island will become so overpopulated that it will tip over and capsize.”

This is not a joke.  The article points out that Congressman Johnson is ill and can become confused and lose his train of thought.  Then why is he still in Congress?????  It really is time to take a good look at the upcoming House of Representatives elections and retire a lot of people who are not able to do their jobs well.

Today’s American Thinker reported on remarks made by President Obama at Northern Virginia Community College in Alexandria, Virginia, on Monday.  The President stated that the takeover of the student loan program included in the healthcare reform bill will:

“…save American taxpayers $68 billion in the coming years — $68 billion.  That’s real money — (laughter) — real savings that we’ll reinvest to help improve the quality of higher education and make it more affordable.”

If we reinvest it (spend it), how is it savings? 

In today’s Washington Examiner, Daniel Kish points out that President Obama’s announcement that he will open large amounts of land to offshore drilling will not help America achieve energy independence. 

“So what does the President’s plan really do?  First of all, it kicks the can down the road on the issue of leasing off the coast of Virginia, from 2011 to 2012.  Leasing off Virginia’s coast has received bipartisan support from state and federal politicians, and was a key component of Gov. Bob McDonnell’s successful election campaign.  The sale was scheduled for 2011; now it’s 2012.” 

This is an indication of how a plan that was supposed to help us with energy indepence will actually serve to slow that energy independence down.  When gasoline hit $150 per barrel in the summer of 2008, George Bush and the Democrat Congress acted to open the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) for drilling.  Since that time, the only thing that has prevented that drilling has been Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar.  The announcement by President Obama does not change the fact that Ken Salazar is still in place.  This announcement is a sleight of hand as the President intends to use the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enact the “Cap and Trade” laws that have no chance of passing in the current Congress.  Look for an announcement in the coming weeks that the EPA will take action on declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant.   

It is also telling that drilling leases will not be allowed in ANWR or off the southern California coast (see yesterday’s Los Angeles Times).

For more information on this subject, see the press release put out by John Boehner yesterday, and the analysis put out by American Solutions.  Unfortunately, the announced policy will not lead us in the direction of energy independence.

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

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

Senator Brown concludes:

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

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

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

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

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

According to the New York TImes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ronald Reagan

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

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

The article concludes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article concludes:

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

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

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

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

The editorial points out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the article:

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

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

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

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

According the Mr. Laffer:

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

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

This is the chart from the article that shows it all:

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

(Picture courtesy of Mark Urbin)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the article: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article points out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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