This article is based on a post by the National Republican Congressional Committee, so please remember, it is one side of the story.  If this ever shows up in the national media (which I doubt it will), it will be interesting to hear the spin.

Two Democrat California Representatives (Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa) which were previously listed as ‘undecided’ on the healthcare vote are not listed as ‘yes’ votes by Code Red (a group tracking the vote count).  Considering the fact that public opinion is rapidly moving in the other direction, why would they go against their constituents to vote ‘yes’? 

According to the article:

“The U.S. Department of Interior announced yesterday that it is increasing water allocations for the Central Valley of California, a region that depends on these water allocations to support local agriculture and jobs. The region has recently been starved for water and as a result unemployment has soared.  Not surprisingly, Cardoza and Costa had a hand in the announcement.”

This is another backroom deal put on to pass healthcare.  Hugh Hewitt has reported on the Central Valley water problems for a few months on his website (hughhewitt.com).  You may need to be a member to follow that particular link, but I am sure many of the California newspapers have carried the story.

If this were a good bill, it would have passed by now.  It is a bad bill that the Democrat Party has been trying to pass since President Obama took office.  The history of this bill is very similar to the history of George Bush’s immigration reform bill, only George Bush had the sense to listen to the majority of the American people and withdraw the bill.  President Obama seems determined to run over the wishes of the majority of the American people.  If you are opposed to this bill and have not yet voiced your opposition, please call your Representative while there is still time.  This is the link to the official House of Representatives website (www.house.gov).  If you follow the link and the simple steps at the site, you can easily email your Representative and voice your opinion.

Article I Section 7 (U. S. Constitution)

“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”

Yesterday the Washington Examiner reported that the Landmark Legal Foundation (the president of which is Mark Levin) is planning to file a lawsuit in federal court if the House of Representatives uses the “Slaughter Solution” to pass healthcare reform.  The initial filing is posted in a link in the Washington Examiner article. 

Our Constitution forces Congress to vote on items that become law.  In this way, we can hold them accountable and vote accordingly.  It seems to me very telling that the House does not trust the Senate to change the bill after the President signs it and it becomes law (the Constitutional way to pass a bill) and that the members of the House are unwilling to go on the record as supporting the Senate bill.  It seems to me that the logical solution here is to scrap the bill and start all over.  The logical alternative to the 2000+ page disaster currently in Congress is the “Small Bill” detailed here (rightwinggranny.com) on February 22.  Congress has wasted more than a year on this.  To start over with the Small Bill would add less than two months to the process if it were done openly and honestly.  I think the American people would support this as an alternative to what is happening now..

I’m not sure whose responsibility this is, but it seems a little off.  When talking to someone today who has a relative in Afghanistan, I asked if she could tell me where he is.  She laughed and sent me to Wikipedia to search for the name of his base camp.  There it was.  They gave an approximate location, plus a list of the troops that were there–American and NATO.  Does anyone else have a problem with this?

This story is based on two articles–one from today’s Boston Herald and one from Power Line yesterday.  Tim Cahill, the Democrat state treasurer of Massachusetts, left the Democrat party in July and it running for governor of Massachusetts as an independent. 

The Boston Herald points out:

“Cahill, saying he was barred from the 2008 Democratic National Convention because he wouldn’t endorse either Obama or Hillary Clinton, said, “My own party basically voted me out.”” 

He has also gone on the record as stating that President Obama’s healthcare reform proposal will bankrupt the country, as a similar healthcare reform plan passed in Massachusetts a few years ago has had a serious negative impact on the state budget.  I would also like to point out (as a resident of Massachusetts) that we have the highest health insurance premiums in the nation–universal healthcare has not brought individual costs down at all.

The main talking point being used to push the necessity of healthcare reform is the need to insure everyone.  That is a valid point, and I am sure most of us would like to see everyone have access to healthcare insurance (everyone is already guaranteed access to medicare care).  The challenge is how to reach that goal.  I believe it is possible to insure every American without wrecking the insurance of every currently insured American.  The savings that would be gained (the CBO figures verify this) from simply passing tort reform would make a major difference in healthcare costs.  Texas has led the way in tort reform and has a growing medical community as a result.  Doctors and medical facilities have voted with their feet.  We can learn from their experience.

The Army Times reported Monday that the Americans working in Haiti to help with the earthquake relief effort have decided not to fly the American flag over their compound.  The statement made is that they do not want to offend their Haitian hosts or give the impression that they are a conquering or occupation force.  This is beyond dumb.  Whenever a natural disaster occurs anywhere in the world, the Americans are usually the first ones in with food, first aid, and any other necessities they can provide.  As far as I am aware, we have not taken over any countries or claimed any new territory since the 1950’s.  We do not govern France, Germany, or Japan despite having large groups of soldiers flying American flags there during World War II .  Although we still have a presence in Germany and Japan, we also contribute to their economies in a major way, and I don’t think anyone would accuse us of taking over those countries.  Since America gets blamed for many of the ills of the world, it seems to me that we have the right to be proud when we are helping someone recover from a disaster!

I would like to point out that Britain, France, and Croatia have no problem flying their flags.  When did we lose the courage to fly our flag proudly when we are helping another country after a natural disaster?  This is a decision that needs to be revisited.

Monday’s Wall Street Journal printed an article by Debra Burlingame and Thomas Joscelyn about some of the activities of the lawyers who have represented the terrorists at Guantanamo.  The story begins on January 26, 2006, when a brochure was found in the cell of one of the prisoners.  The brochure was put out by amnesty international and decried American abuse of Muslim prisoners and America’s war on Islam.  (Amnesty International has a history of supporting anti-democracy forces in its claims of abuse).  When the detainee was asked where he got the brochure, he said that he had gotten it from his lawyer through “legal mail,” privileged lawyer-client communications that are exempt from screening by security personnel.  The literature was shared with other detainees. 

Mrs. Burlingame further relates:

‘The Amnesty International brochure, handed out at a human rights conference in London, was a political advocacy screed in clear violation of that order, which was formulated to protect force security. Maj. Gen. Hood made a command decision. He banned the Paul, Weiss lawyers from access to Guantanamo. The DOJ notified the firm.’

The firm promptly sued the government.  The government reached a settlement with the Paul Weiss lawyers, and they were again given access to Guantanamo prisoners.  The story continues:

“On Feb. 20, 2007, a post on the Paul, Weiss Web site proudly announced “Paul, Weiss achieves more victories for Guantanamo detainees.” Two detainees were released from Gitmo to their home in Saudi Arabia. One was Majeed Abdullah Al Joudi, a recipient of the Amnesty International “report.” The Web site needs an update. The Pentagon has identified Al Joudi as a “confirmed” recidivist who is “directly involved” with the facilitation of “terrorist activities.””

The question now being asked is how many of the lawyers in the current Justice Department were part of the Paul Weiss team.  Please follow the link to read the entire story of what has gone on regarding Guantanamo.  We handled this sort of thing much more effectively during World War II.

This is a picture of a Belgian F-16 taken at Kandahar Airfield.  Michael Yon posted an article yesterday about the culture of Afghanistan and the war we are fighting.  Please remember to pray for our military and the NATO military that are fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This picture is posted at Hot Air.  It is a Minnesota billboard on I-94 outside of Albertville on the northwest end of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area.  There are more pictures of the billboard posted at Hot Air.

This story is based on two articles, one from Power Line and one from Fox News.  As the healthcare debate has heated up, we have heard a lot about people dying because they did not have health insurance.  While I am sure there may be rare cases of that occurring, I suspect they have more to do with the patient being reluctant to seek treatment than the treatment being available.  I have a case in point.

Yesterday President Obama cited the case of Natoma Canfield, an Ohio woman with leukemia. 

Fox News reports:

“Natoma Canfield, the cancer-stricken woman who has become a centerpiece of President Obama’s push for health care reform, will not lose her home over her medical bills and will probably qualify for financial aid, a top official at the Cleveland medical center treating her told FoxNews.com.” 

There are, I am sure, instances where people have lost their homes due to illness.  That is tragic, but I believe it is also the exception–not the rule.  Americans are the most generous people on earth, and it is written into our laws that no one can be denied medical treatment if they show up at a hospital.  Unfortunately, if Obamacare is put into place, elderly people may routinely be denied care due to lack of availability.  The number of doctors willing to take elderly patients under the proposed regulations will be decreasing rapidly–as the population ages.  We will be in danger of instituting the same kind of government rules over the availability of medical care found in Canada and England–where people can wait as much as a year for bypass surgery.

Healthcare insurance could use some reform–tort reform, portability across state lines, risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions, and tax credits to enable the poor to afford health insurance.  Anything more than that will ruin the quality of care we have now.

Power Line has posted two articles recently about the recent dustup between America and Israel (Condemn This and Condemn This Part 2).  The first article points out that while Israel was condemned for announcing the construction of buildings within the bounds of its own capital city, no mention was made of the fact that according to Power Line, shortly after Joe Biden left the Palestine Authority:

“… students from Abbas’s Fatah party gathered in Ramallah to dedicate a public square to the memory of a woman who in 1978 helped carry out the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel’s history. The woman and her terrorist crew killed an American photojournalist, hijacked a bus and commandeered another, embarking on a bloody rampage that left 38 Israeli civilians dead, 13 of them children.”

Israel is building on her land.  The Palestinians were celebrating the death of innocent Israelis.  Until terrorism against Israel is stopped and no longer celebrated, I do not see how peace between the two countries is possible. 

The second article lists the demands that the United States is making of the Israelis in order to forward the ‘peace process.’  One of these demands is the release by the Israelis of Palestinian terrorists currently in Israeli prisons.  These are the people who kill innocent people and are celebrated in Palestine.  The Obama Administration is again supporting terrorists and their activities instead of supporting our allies and the people who support freedom and democracy.

Michael Yon posted a letter on his website today refuting the charges that the Spanish NATO forces were not adequately supporting the US effort in Afghanistan.  The letter (shown on the site) is from a US Army Colonel to a Spanish Army Colonel.  I am not sure what the truth is in this matter, but hopefully the two colonels can iron out any difficulties.  Again, I remind everyone to pray for the safety of our military (and the NATO military) in Afghanistan.

I need to state at the beginning of this article that I do not have the technical knowledge to understand what happened here–I trust the people who are reporting it.  On Sunday, Jalopnik.com reported on their research into the runaway Prius incident in California last week.  They have posted memos on their website regarding the incident which they feel show that the incident was staged.  They are not the only skeptics.

Google.com posted an Associated Press story also expressing doubts as to how the incident actually happened and whether it was staged. 

The reason for doubt on the part of the Jalopnik people is that the memos show that the patterns of brake wear are not consistent with the story being told.  Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal posted a story about the brake wear pattern, but you need to be a subscriber to access the full story.

Jalopnik also reported:

“According to Mr. David Justo, Toyota Motor Sales HQ, I was informed that he is Toyota’s residential Hybrid expert, he stats “that if MG2 (gas pedal is to the floor, creating positive force) and the driver puts the brake MG1 (creating negative force) then the engine would shut down. If the engine does not shut down then the gears would be spinning pat their maximum revolutions per minute and completely seize the engine. So, in this case, knowing that we are able to push the car around the shop, it does not appear to be feasibly possible, both electronically and mechanically that his gas pedal was stuck to the floor and he was slamming on the brake at the same time”.”

This may turn out to be the automotive equivalent of the balloon boy hoax.  There may be an acceleration problem with some Toyotas, but faking an incident is not helpful to anyone. 

Saturday’s Washington Examiner posted a story by Byron York about the stonewalling by White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, on charges that the White House attempted to bribe a Congressman to keep him out of an election.  Robert Gibbs is continuing to avoid answering questions about the charges by Democratic Representative Joe Sestak that the White House offered him a job in the current administraiton in return for dropping out of the Democrat primary race in Pennsylvania. 

Representative Sestak is challenging Arlen Specter in the Democrat Senate primary.  On February 18th, Joe Sestak told a radio talk show host that last summer, when he was contemplating a run for Arlen Specter’s Senate seat, a job offer had come from the White House on the condition that he would not run.  The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on February 19th that a White House spokesman had denied the charge.

Robert Gibbs has been asked about this charge five times and has successfully avoided answering the question each time. 

The article points out:

“Not only is the charge serious; Sestak himself, with his long career in the Navy before winning a seat in Congress, is a serious source. On March 8, at a health care event in Pennsylvania, President Obama referred to Sestak as “somebody who rendered outstanding service to our nation before he was in Congress.””

This is a serious charge made by a serious person.  It needs to be investigated–not simply avoided.

Investors.com posted an article on Thursday about the federal budget and its looming deficits.  It included a chart:

This is what our deficits look like in the future.  The article points out that by 2020 our national debt will be $20.3 trillion, an increase of 171 percent in ten years.  Last year, debt as a share of our Gross National Product was 53 percent; by 2020 it will be more than 90 percent. 

The article points out the coming tax increases:

“The increases include: $843 billion for a cap-and-trade energy tax; $743 billion for health reform; nearly $1 trillion in taxes on upper-income families and small businesses; $468 billion on banks, multinationals and virtually all other businesses; and miscellaneous proposals that would add $111 billion to America’s tax bill.”

Unless someone in Congress has the courage to put the brakes on the spending proposals of the current administration, we can expect our children and grandchildren to pay a much higher percentage of their income to the government than we do now.  We can expect unemployment to remain at 10 percent or above, and we can expect our children and grandchildren to wonder why the economic opportunities that were available to their parents are not available to them.

Yesterday Breitbart.com reported on one of the problem areas in passing healthcare reform–the President and the Senators disagree on the basic bill.  The President has stated that he wants specific projects for specific states taken out of the bill; the Senators want to leave the extra money for individual states in the bill.  The Senate approved healthcare reform bill sends $600 million to Vermont in the next ten years for additional Medicaid payments, and almost as much to Massachusetts. Connecticut gets $100 million to build a hospital and Florida residents get to keep Medicare Adavantage insurance.  There are also specific extra benefits for Montana, West Virginia, Wyoming, and North and South Dakota.

The reason for the President’s opposition to the provisions of the bill regarding specific states is the appearance–back room deals have become very unpopular and many of the provisions in this bill look like payments for votes.  The exception that the President is willing to leave in is the $300 million for Louisiana.  President Obama regards that as a necessary expense to rebuild after hurricane Katrina. 

I really hope this bill does not pass, but if it does, the amount of money it will cost every taxpayer is almost unimaginable.  It will not lower health insurance payments or healthcare costs–the only thing this bill will reduce is the quality of healthcare in America.

Roll Call reported yesterday that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi hopes to pass the President’s healthcare reform bill next week.   She stated that the House would pass the Senate bill and then make changes to the bill via the reconciliation method.  The changes to the student loan program will also be put in the reconciliation bill.  (Despite the fact that Congress is saying that the transfer of the student loan program to the government will save money, there are many analysts who believe it will cost money because of defaults on loans and other expenses). 

The article points out:

“On the abortion issue, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) underlined comments he made yesterday suggesting the House will forge ahead without adding strict language to appease Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and other anti-abortion-rights Democrats. Hoyer said the Senate approach — which Stupak has assailed as too weak — cannot be tweaked “per se” in the reconciliation package. “We’ll have to deal with it pretty much as it is at this point in time,” Hoyer told reporters Friday.”

If I were a pro-life Democrat, I don’t think I would be too happy with this deal. 

If you are opposed to the Medicare cuts and government takeover of healthcare in the present reform bill, please follow this link to Hugh Hewitt‘s blog and click on the link to email your Congressman and a number of blue dog Democrats.  It takes less than a minute, and may be the only way to stop this bill.

Today’s Houston Chronicle reports on the battle for textbook content that has been going on in Texas.  The State Board of Education has tentatively approved the standards for Social Studies currriculum that will be used in the state.  Because Texas sets the standard for the nation in curriculum (evidently because they buy such a large number of textbooks), the standards they set will eventually be used throughout the country.

Yesterday’s New York Times also reported on the events in Texas (although from a slightly different angle).  According to the New York Times:

“After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.”

All right, let’s look at some of the decisions made about those supposed ‘Republican political philosophies’:

• Experts had recommended students study the impact of cultural movements in art, music and literature, such as Tin Pan Alley, the Beat Generation, rock and roll, the Chicano Mural Movement, country-western music and hip-hop. The board’s seven social conservatives, joined by Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, R-Dallas, considered some of the hip-hop lyrics offensive and voted to eliminate hip- hop as an option for students to consider.
• …the proposed standards reflect the desires of his constituents to emphasize “personal responsibility and accountability” and “to honor our Founding Fathers, and our military.
• The proposed standards include a section on teenage suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders which required the teaching of “the importance of personal responsibility for life choices.”
• Conservatives passed one amendment, for instance, requiring that the history of McCarthyism include “how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.” The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States.  

The proposed standards face a public hearing and a final vote in May.  There is a reason that the name of this site is ‘rightwinggranny.’  I support the teaching that American capitalism is superior.  Show me any other country in the world that feeds more people and allows more people the opportunity to succeed.  We don’t guarantee success–we just guarantee the opportunity to allow everyone to work hard and achieve their goals. 

I hope this curriculum will be put in place–it may help the cultural decline that America has seen in recent years to remind our children that they live in a land of opportunity and that they alone are responsible for their actions.

Heritage.org posted a tutorial today for those of us who do not understand exactly what is involved in the reconciliation process.  Yesterday the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that a bill must be signed into law by the President before it can be changed and reconciled with the House bill.  Well, that was yesterday; this is today. 

This article reports:

“Reports have come out today that the Parliamentarian has not ruled that the President must sign a law before it is considered a law for reconciliation purposes. First, they came up with a strategy to get Obamacare passed in the House without the House ever voting on the bill, now they have come up with a strategy and a ruling to get the Obamacare bill to qualify as law without the President signing the law. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid should not support efforts to violate the clear words of the Constitution to pass Obamacare.”

It should be obvious to those leaders in Congress who believe that they must pass this horrible bill that the are going against the American people and against the U.S. Constitution.  They need to find something else to focus on (or maybe we can send them all home for the rest of the year).

The article points out that a bill is not a law until it is signed into law by the President.  To use the reconciliation process between the House and the Senate before a bill is law is totally unconstitutional.

To try to cram this bill through in this manner is political suicide in an election year.  I hope some of the Democrats in Congress believe in self-preservation.

USA Today has posted an article today stating that some states will be delaying taxpayer refunds for up to five months due to budgeting problems.  The states that have said that they will be delaying refunds are Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, New York, and North Carolina.  If this is not illegal, it should be (unless they are paying interest!).  A tax refund represents an overpayment of taxes by a taxpayer.  The state refunds that money because it is not entitled to keep it.  This is the equivalent of taking money from someone without their permission with the idea that eventually you will pay them back.  I really do think it’s time for a taxpayers’ revolt–this is revolting!

This article is based on two sources–the Washington Examiner yesterday and the New York Post yesterday.  The Washington Examiner reported that House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter has come up with a plan to get the healthcare reform bill through Congress.  Any resemblance between her plan and the U.S. Constitution or the rules of the House or Senate is purely coincidental.  According to the National Journal’s Congress Daily:

“Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

“Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. ‘Once the CBO gives us the score, we’ll spring right on it,’ she said.”

This is amazing.  The reason for this, however, is very simple.  On December 16th rightwinggranny.com ran a story about Nancy Pelosi saying that the House Democrats would not be voting on controversial bills unless the Senate voted first.  This makes sense.  The entire House is up for re-election every two years.  Only one third of the Senate is up for re-election every two years.  It is very unusual for major legislation to be passed in an election year–and the healthcare legislation is not popular.

If this bill is passed in the House as is, Democrats running for office can expect to be reminded of Medicare cuts, Cornhusker kickback, Louisiana Purchase, etc.  That’s why they don’t want to go on record as voting for the Senate bill as is.

The New York Post concludes:

“So now Democratic leaders say they’ll package a two-for-one vote: Moving the original Senate bill simultaneously with a “reconciliation” bill — thus, if the House votes for the bill of fixes, the main Senate bill will be deemed to also have passed. Then the reconciliation bill will go back to the Senate, where it only needs 50 votes (plus Vice President Joe Biden’s) to pass.

“Hmm. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that Congress can deem a bill to have passed. Pelosi & Co. aren’t just making up policy as they go, but also procedure — possibly unconstitutional procedure, at that. All to enact a bill remaking a sixth of the US economy over the 3-1 opposition of the American people.”

This is going to be fun to watch. 

This notice came from a municipality in Texas, but it applies across the country:

2010 Census to Begin
BASIC ADVICE: 

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal posted an article by Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen about the problems in passing the current healthcare reform legislation.  The article points out that public opposition to the bill has not significantly changed in the past four months.  Generally speaking, Democrat voters support the bill and Republican voters oppose it.  However, one of the groups consistently opposing the bill is senior citizens, who tend to vote in mid-term elections.  The polls generally show that for every person who supports the bill, there are two who oppose it.

The article points out:

“Why can’t the president move the numbers? One reason may be that he keeps talking about details of the proposal while voters are looking at the issue in a broader context. Polling conducted earlier this week shows that 57% of voters believe that passage of the legislation would hurt the economy, while only 25% believe it would help. That makes sense in a nation where most voters believe that increases in government spending are bad for the economy.”

Voters at this point have concluded that reducing the deficit is important.  They are becoming convinced that major spending initiatives are not a valid part of deficit reduction.  There is also the public perception of the cost of individual healthcare if the bill is passed.  Only 17 percent of people polled believe the healthcare reform bill will reduce the cost of their care.  The majority of Americans have health insurance and 76 percent are happy with their current coverage.  The perception is that if healthcare reform passes, they will have to switch to another insurance provider.  The thought of the paperwork involved in that switch is enough to cause anyone to oppose the bill!

The article concludes:

“The reason President Obama can’t move the numbers and build public support is because the fundamentals are stacked against him. Most voters believe the current plan will harm the economy, cost more than projected, raise the cost of care, and lead to higher middle-class taxes.

“That’s a tough sell when the economy is hurting and people want reform to lower the cost of care. It’s also a tough sell for a president who won an election by promising tax cuts for 95% of all Americans.”

It would be nice if after all this debate on the current healthcare reform bill, it could be scrapped and replaced by a ten or fifteen page bill that would actually bring positive changes to the healthcare insurance industry.  Unfortunately I think that will happen right after pigs fly.

On Monday, The Hill reported on the Democrat plan to include an overhaul of federal student lending in the healthcare reform bill. 

The article points out:

“President Barack Obama has made reforming student loan programs a high priority of his first term, and the savings created by lending directly to students could save the government $67 billion over 10 years.

“But the student loan industry estimates that nearly 35,000 jobs would be lost if the federal government lent directly to students and only let private companies service the loans.”

This move would drive out private sources of student loans and make the student loan program strickly a government and government-run program.  Aside from my normal reluctance to see the government take over any part of the private sector, it seems to me that the potential for abuse in a government-controlled student loan industry is astronomical.   Who determines who gets the loans?  Who determines the amount of the loans?  Who determines the payback conditions of the loans?  It seems to me that the government’s track record on lending money is not particularly good–remember the sub-prime mortgage market?  Frankly, I wouldn’t trust a government agency to do anything if I could avoid it.  And please explain to me why we need to include this in the healthcare reform bill!

Today’s Beaufort Observer (Beaufort, North Carolina) posted an article about the Ocean Policy Task Force appointed by President Obama to plan federal policy related to ocean fishing.  Oddly enough, when the group released its report on December 14th of last year, the report was entitled Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning.  The report included such items as:

• Traditional Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering
• Scientific Research and Exploration
• Tourism
• Other Recreation (e.g., boating, beach access, swimming, nature and whale watching, and diving)
• Recreational Fishing
• Commercial Fishing
• Commerce and Transportation (e.g. cargo and cruise ships, tankers, and ferries)

You get the picture.  The article quotes the report:

“The geographic scope would include inland bays and estuaries in both coastal and Great Lakes settings. Inclusion of inland bays and estuaries is essential because of the significant ecological, social, and economic linkages between these areas with offshore areas. Additional inland areas may be included in the planning area as the regional planning bodies, described in Section IX below, deem appropriate. Regardless, consideration of inland activities would be necessary to account for the significant interaction between upstream activities and ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes uses and ecosystem health. Likewise, consideration should also be given to activities occurring beyond the EEZ that may influence resources or activities within the EEZ.”

This is a major power grab going on at a time when the current administration believes that no one is paying attention.  It is a threat to any coastal area that has a tourist business during the summer season.  Remember that the 10th Amendment gives the states any power that is not given to the federal government.  It’s time for all coastal states to reaffirm the 10th Amendment.  Control of coastal areas and coastal tourist fishing should be left to the states–not the federal government.

This article is not sourced.  It is based on reports I am hearing from various news sources.  There are some issues being raised about how the current bill could be passed without sixty votes in the Senate and what that would mean to the average American’s medical care.

The reconciliation process requires that the House pass the Senate bill as is to begin the process.  Thie would include the ‘Louisiana Purchase’, the ‘Cornhusker Kickback’, and the Florida Medicare A exception.  One of the issues in this process for some House members is abortion funding.  The House bill has strong language preventing the use of federal funds to pay for abortions (there may be exceptions to that when the life of the mother is at risk).  The Senate bill does not directly use federal funds to pay for abortion–everyone who gets their health insurance through the government pays a surcharge that goes into a fund to pay for abortions.  Technically the government isn’t paying for abortions, the people buying medical insurance from the government are.  There are also some real questions as to whether conscience clauses that protect doctors and nurses whose religious convictions oppose abortion are included in the Senate (or House) bill. 

Another thing to be aware of as the debate continues about healthcare reform is the ability to keep your present health insurance.  Medicare A, one of the most popular Medicare programs, will be eliminated (except in Florida).  That means that many of our senior citizens would be forced to find new health insurance.  Also, the way the bill is written, it would be advantageous for businesses to stop providing health insurance coverage for their employees.  The fine for not covering employees would be considerably lower than the cost of insuring employees.  This would force most Americans to find new health insurance.  Because the private health insurance companies would not be able to compete with the ‘seemingly endless’ funds of the federal government, private insurance companies would be forced out of business.  We would then have only government healthcare.

Healthcare insurance reform is a good idea.  There are ways to make the healthcare system more efficient and less costly.  Some good ideas are tort reform, portability across state lines, tax incentives for people to buy insurance, and insurance pools for pre-existing conditions.  On February 22, I posted an article (RightWingGranny.com) about The Small Bill, a one-page proposal to reform healthcare insurance.  Frankly, I think we should reject any bill that has more than twenty-five pages!  That way we can be relatively sure that some of the people voting on the bill will read the bill!