No, I’m sorry, I’m not talking about Washington, D. C.; I’m talking about Texas.  I have heard it said that the biggest mistake America ever made was air conditioning the government buildings in Washington, D. C.  If we hadn’t done that, Congress (and maybe the President) would go home for the summer and would do less damage.  Well, I didn’t realize that there was a state that understands how to run a government–Texas.

Michael Barone posted a commentary at Townhall.com yesterday comparing the growth and government of California and Texas in recent years. 

In writing about California, Michael Barone points out:

“Those Democratic majorities (in the legislature) have obediently done the bidding of public employee unions to the point that state government faces huge budget deficits. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s attempt to reduce the power of the Democratic-union combine with referenda was defeated in 2005 when public employee unions poured $100 million — all originally extracted from taxpayers — into effective TV ads.”

Texas has low taxes, no state income tax, and a much smaller government.  The legislature of Texas meets for ninety days every two years.  Public employee unions are weak or non-existent.  Texas pays its teachers less than Calilfornia, but its student test scores are higher.  The Texas economy is booming.  Unemployment rates have been below the national average for more than ten years. 

Michael Barone also points out:

“And Americans have been voting for Texas with their feet. From 2000 to 2009, some 848,000 people moved from other parts of the United States to Texas, about the same number as moved in from abroad. That inflow has continued in 2008-09, in which 143,000 Americans moved into Texas, more than double the number in any other state, at the same time as 98,000 were moving out of California. Texas is on the way to gain four additional House seats and electoral votes in the 2010 reapportionment.”

Texas has also instituted tort reform in its medical system.  As a result of this, hospitals and doctors are relocating to the state, and the medical profession is booming there.

The bottom line here is that people do better when the government is smaller and government pay scales are not dictated by union demands.  California is going broke, and Texas is booming.  Which example should we be following nationally?

Today at Michael Yon‘s blog, Michael posted a disturbing article about the behavior of Spanish troops in Afganistan.  The source of his article was an email written by a Lieutenant Colonel in the 82nd Airborne Division in Afghanistan.  Michael points out that he does not personally know the Lieutenant Colonel nor did he receive the email directly from the Lieutenant Colonel.

The email is about the abysmal, unsafe conditions which some of our most dedicated troops are living in, at a remote base run by the Spanish military in Afghanistan.  Our military who use this base as a refueling stop have asked for certain improvements at the base to protect our troops as they refuel our planes.  The Spanish have not complied.

Michael quotes directly from the email:

“USFOR-A needs to energize someone to develop a viable, enduring plan for this FARP that isn’t reliant on the Spanish. This is a key hub for fuel (since we can’t get trucks to [xxx] or [xxx]) so let’s improve this location to better support those guys living out there on the edge by themselves. They refused to allow a Marine detachment that was dropped there to come into the wire or feed them overnight. Our refuelers had to fight the Spanish to bring them in and squeeze them into the two small tents that they have and give them MREs as they [sic] Spanish wouldn’t feed them. Is this how we allow our Coalition partners to treat Americans?”

After World War II, America pledged to come to Europe’s aid against future attacks.  Europe in return has not developed its military because it depends on the US.  Even though Afghanistan is supposedly a NATO effort, the majority of the heavy lifting in that war has been by America, Canada, Britain, and Australia.  Although they have been asked to provide more troops, generally speaking Europe has not answered the call.  It seems as if NATO has become a one way street in fighting the war on terror.  It is time for the nations of Europe to step up to the plate.

Yesterday at the Washington Examiner, Byron York pointed out that there has been a missing step in the legislative process that is being followed to pass the healthcare reform bill.  He asks, “Where is the House-Senate Conference Committee?”   The article points out that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid decided to skip the conference committee because it would be public and might reveal (and strengthen) the major differences between the Senate and House bills.  Meanwhile, the problem they are currently having in passing healthcare reform is dealing with the major differences between the Senate and House bills.

The problem for the Democrats in passing healthcare reform involves some basic philosophical differences within the Democrat party about what the bill should do and how it should do it.

One of the major differences between the House and Senate bills is the way the healthcare reform package is funded.  In the House bill, there is a 5.4 percent surtax on individuals earning more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million.  There is also a 2.5 percent excise tax on medical devices, an end to some tax breaks for multinational companies and a closing of a biofuels tax loophole for paper companies.  In the Senate bill, there is a 40 percent tax on ‘cadillac health care plans’, payroll taxes on Medicare are increased, and special fees are levied on insurers, drug companies and medical device makers.

There are also differences in the language banning federal funding of abortions, the public option, and mandates on employers and consumers.

Some of the information may have changed (my source was from 2009), but the basic fact remains the same–the Democrat party controls the House and the Senate.  If the Democrats had the votes, this bill would have already passed. 

The President’s current approach to rallying public opinion to support this bill is to make it appear that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of the public and making enormous profits.  This is not the case.  The health insurance companies have a profit margin of about 2 to 5 percent–other areas of the healthcare business have a profit margin of between 15 and 25 percent.  Remember that as you listen to the speeches given by people who want you to support the present bill.

USA Today posted an article recently on the fact that government employees now make more and receive more benefits than private sector employees.  Ed Morrissey at Hot Air commented on the article.  The salaries are currently about 10% higher in the government sector and the benefits are about four times the benefits offered in the private sector. 

For example, a government broadcast technician makes about $90,310 a year, while a private-sector broadcast technician makes about $49,265 a year.  The salary in the private sector is controlled by the need of a company to make a profit.  In the public sector there are no such controls–if a town, state, or federal government needs more money, they find a way to raise taxes or fees. 

Mr. Morrissey points out:

“The SEIU and AFSCME have a grip on the federal workplace, which is — not coincidentally — why taxpayers pay double for a recreation worker, or 45% more for pest control salaries rather than just call Orkin.”

It is not a coincidence that when the White House released its visitors logs in late 2009, according to the Wall Street Journal on October 30, 2009, the person visiting the White House most frequently was Andrew Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union.  I would also like to note that if you google ‘SEIU and ACORN connection’, you will find a number of articles showing how the two organizations are related.  Both organizations seem to attract a rather unsavory bunch of people to their leadership positions.  

Yesterday, The Hill posted an article citing the response of Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans to a report released by the Obama Administration listing the salaries of the top executives of health insurance companies.  Ms. Ignagni points out that:

 “This issue of executive compensation is a very important question for boards of directors in every stakeholder community and every part of our economy. And in fact, we are having those discussions. Boards of directors are increasingly through proxy kinds of initiatives in their own discussions are increasingly demonstrating that the compensation is aligned with productivity and performance. … I think this is a question that ought to be raised across the economy.”

I really do think that in a stockholder-held corporation it is not the government’s business what anyone is paid–that is the stockholders’ decision–not the governments.  Ms. Ignangni also pointed out that the profit margin in the health insurance industry is in the two to three percent range, while other areas of healthcare have profit margins of 15 to 25 percent.

The charge of overpaying executives in the health insurance industry is not really related to anything except the President’s desire to pass a very unpopular healthcare reform bill.  The more he can shine his spotlight on the ‘evil insurance companies’, the easier it will be to convince the American people that we have to pass health insurance reform now.  Fortunately, I think most Americans are paying attention to what is going on in Washington right now and will not fall for the sleight of hand that is being attempted.

Another aspect of the White House releasing executive pay scales in an industry is the attack on success that is being fostered by the Obama Administration.  Senior corporate executives make a lot of money.  They also shoulder a lot of responsibility, and most of them probably don’t remember ever working an eight-hour day.  If you take away the incentive to be successful, fewer people will be willing to put out the effort to succeed.  That is how to ruin a country and remove it from its position as a world economic leader.  We also need to remember that we are in danger of reaching a point where less than 50 percent of Americans pay income taxes.  As fewer people pay income taxes, there are fewer people who care when those taxes are raised, and generally speaking, many of the people who are not paying income taxes are receiving money from the government.  That is situation will eventually lead to a financially bankrupt country.

There is an Associated Press story in Business Week today about Danny Glover asking the people who attending the Oscar Awards Ceremony on Sunday not to wear clothes by Hugo Boss.  There are 375 Hugo Boss employees in Cleveland, Ohio, who will lose their jobs next month because the German company is closing the plant. 

The article points out:

“The company says the plant is not globally competitive and under capacity. The union says the plant is profitable and the company is shuttering it because it can make clothing more cheaply in Europe.”

As much as I hate to see anyone lose their job, the company is entitled to manufacture goods in whatever location is most profitable for the company.  Has it occurred to Mr. Glover that if the company paid less money in taxes and dealt with fewer government regulations, they might be more profitable?  Is Mr. Glover aware that  the average combined federal and state corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.3 percent?  If you want to see more Americans retain their manufacturing jobs, lower the corporate tax rate and reduce the amount of federal regulations on businesses.  Until those things are done, America will continue to lose manufacturing jobs (and other jobs) overseas.

Yesterday’s Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about the jobs report just released.  The White House is claiming that the high unemployment numbers are partially due to the snow storms we had during the month of February.  During February, businesses shed 36,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate remained at 9.7%. 

The article points out that the numbers are misleading.  The real number of jobs lost is 51,000–the government counts 15,000 workers temporarily hired by the Census Bureau as new jobs.  The jobless rate actually becomes 16.8% when you count the people who have given up on finding a job or who are working part-time because they can’t find a full time job.

One of problems named in the article is the utter cluelessness of Washington as to how our economy works and what the government needs to do to help the economy grow and the jobless rate to go down instead of up.

The article points out:

“Meanwhile, on Thursday, the U.S. Treasury released its latest long-term financial outlook, and found that in the last nine months the U.S. long-term fiscal deficit has soared 21% to $76 trillion.

“By the Obama Treasury’s own admission, that’s unsustainable. Yet the fiscal path the administration has us on would make it even worse. Given all this, it’s amazing the economy’s growing at all.”

The article concludes:

“Unless we act, and soon, to cut taxes and reduce the size of government, the U.S. will enter a protracted period of slow economic growth, stagnant wages, and permanently high unemployment.”

The only way to cut taxes and reduce the size of government is to replace this Congress in November.

Yesterday, National Review Online, at its Planet Gore blog, posted a story about a solar energy farm in Indiantown, Florida.   The solar energy farm sits next to a natural gas plant.  The natural gas plant covers 15 acres of land and generates 3,800 megawatts of reliable electricity.  The solar energy farm covers 500 acres and generates 75 megawatts of electricity at its peak. 

The article points out:

“At $476 million (the cost of the solar project), it also means that building a 1000-MW solar array — the size of an average coal or nuclear plant — would cost $5 billion, putting it right up there with the most expensive reactors and coal plants with carbon capture. But the solar panels only generate electricity one-third of the time. “We’d love to tell you that solar power is as economical as fossil fuels, but the reality is that it is not,” says Lewis Hay II, CEO of Florida Power and Light, which has built the complex.  “It’s not a level playing field for renewable versus fossils right now.”  Indeed.”

I believe that at some time in the future we will have the technology for green energy.  I also believe that energy independence and green energy will evolve as the result of innovation driven by market forces.  To involve the government in the development of green energy simply alters the market and makes it harder for true innovation to prevail.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article on Wednesday about the appointment of Scott Matheson, Jr., to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.  At the same time, his brother, Representative Jim Matheson, is making a decision as to whether or not he should support the healthcare reform bill before the House of Representatives.  Mr. Hinderaker points out that Judge Matheson would be an excellent choice for the position even if he didn’t have a brother in Congress.  Since Mr. Hinderaker is a practicing lawyer (and I love his blog), I will take his word on this matter.  The appointment may actually be one of President Obama’s better appointments, but the timing of it is just stupid.  Even if there is no connection between the two events, it was politically unwise to announce the appointment at this time.  In politics (as in a few other places) perception is reality, and no amount of denial will convince the skeptics that this is simply coincidence.  While it is certainly within the President’s authority to make this appointment at this time, it was a politically stupid move, which is something that President Obama does not often do.  That fact alone may indicate that there was no political motivation behind it! 

Andy McCarthy at The Corner at National Review posted a commentary about the move by the Obama Administration toward using military commissions for terrorist trials.  The administration has recommended a military commission for the USS Cole bombers. 

Mr. McCarthy points out that the agenda here is to seem to make a concession to the people who support military trials in exchange for the concessions that will allow the administration to close Guantanamo without too much opposition.  Senator Lindsey Graham is attempting to broker a deal seeking reciprocal compromise from the conservative side.

Mr. McCarthy further states:

“Sen. Graham and others will tell you such an outcome will be a great victory for national security conservatives who think terrorists should be tried by commission. Don’t buy it. The deal would be a great victory for the terrorists. As I argued here, it would significantly increase the threat to U.S. military bases and geometrically increase the likelihood that federal judges will order that trained terrorists be released in the United States. There is no excuse for taking on these risks given that Gitmo is a top-flight, completely secure facility. It makes no sense to horse-trade when Obama was being pushed toward military commissions by reality.”

I think we need to look at history to find our way in dealing with matters involving treatment of terrorists.  These are not uniformed soldiers–they are terrorists.  During World War II, they would have been tried in a military court and swiftly executed if found guilty.  We have chosen to be more compassionate.  That’s nice, but we don’t need to bring terrorists into America on purpose.  We are not dealing with people who can be reformed–the Saudi re-education program for terrorists has provided Al Qaeda with a lot of its overseas leadership.  Guantanamo is a secure place where the prisoners are treated better than they would be in their home countries.  It serves a purpose, and we need to keep it open.

Yesterday the Houston Chronicle reported on the changes the Obama Administration is making to the federal program on coastal drilling leases. 

According to the article:

“Interior Secretary Ken Salazar  told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that he was preparing two plans to govern leases on the outer continental shelf — one with court-mandated changes that would apply through June 30, 2012, and another completely new blueprint for leasing from July 1, 2012, until 2017.”

What this means is that the Bush-era proposal that would have allowed leases in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans has been scrapped.  There is a possibility that drilling off the coast of Virginia will be allowed in the future.

The new government plan includes a lot of ‘fees’ and taxes on companies who do offshore drilling.  Mr. Salazar says that these fees will be used to pay down the deficit. 

The article points out:

“Several oil patch senators said they were concerned that a related administration plan to get rid of tax incentives long used by the oil and gas industry to defray the high capital costs of drilling would curb domestic production.

“Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., called the budget plan a collection of “draconian taxes on the oil and gas industry.””

It is a known fact in government that when you tax an activity, you get less of it.  The fees and taxes put on our oil companies for drilling offshore will be another obstacle in the path of energy independence for America.

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article about the ongoing debate over healthcare reform.  The article quotes President Obama as saying, “Every argument has been made. Everything that there is to say about health care has been said, and just about everybody has said it,”  Then the article explains that not only is that statement false, almost everything this administration has said about the cost of their healthcare proposals is also false. 

Representative Paul Ryan made a number of statements at the recent healthcare summit that are in direct conflict with what the Obama Administration is saying, yet no one has addressed these statements or proved them false.  Possibly because they are true.

The article points out:

“At his press conference yesterday, Mr. Obama claimed that “my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions–families, businesses and the federal government.” He said it is “fully paid for” and “brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next two decades.” Never before has a vast new entitlement been sold on the basis of fiscal responsibility, and one reason ObamaCare is so unpopular is that Americans understand the contradiction between untold new government subsidies and claims of spending restraint. They know a Big Con when they hear one.”

This is quite a statement.  The article outlines the lies currently being presented to the American people on the subject of healthcare reform.  The hope is that as the American people see the lies and make their voices heard, our representatives will reconsider their plan to push this bill through Congress by using parliamentary trickery. 

Today’s Washington Times is reporting that Captain Chesley Sullenberger retired yesterday.  Captain Sully’s final flight landed at Charlotte Douglas International Airport where there was a small retirement ceremony.  His last flight included some of the crew that flew with him on the January 2009 day that he safely landed his airplane in the Hudson River. 

The article quotes Captain Sully:

“Though I am retiring, I will continue to serve as the same kind of advocate I have always been — not only for aviation safety, but for the airline piloting profession. I will work to remind the entire industry — and those who manage and regulate it — that we have a sacred duty to our passengers to do the very best that we know how to do.”

Thank you, sir, for being an inspiration. 

This article is based on two articles, one posted at CNSNews.com today, and one posted at the Wall Street Journal today.

The CNS News story deals with Representative Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan, making the statement that despite House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s claim that the healthcare reform bill passed by the Senate bans federal funding of abortion, it does not.  Representative Stupak has publicly stated that he will not vote for the bill if it contains public funding of abortion.  Senator Ben Nelson made the same statement, but was bought off; my feeling is that Represenative Stupak has stronger principles. 

According the the CNS News article:

“The House reportedly would pass the Senate bill on the condition that the Senate uses the budget reconciliation process to pass changes the more liberal House wants. Under reconciliation, the Senate could pass health care reform with a simple majority, 51 votes, instead of the usual 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.
 
“Any abortion compromise would have to be included in a reconciliation package, a prospect that Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said may not even be possible. Conrad, who as Budget Committee chairman is an expert on reconciliation rules, said that abortion may not qualify for the special process normally reserved for budget bills.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial speaks out strongly against using the reconciliation process:

“Yet this shortcut (reconciliation) has never been used for anything approaching the enormity of a national health-care entitlement. Democrats are only resorting to it now because their plan is in so much political trouble–within their own party, and even more among the general public–and because they’ve failed to make their case through persuasion.”

If by parliamentary trickery, the Democrats pass the healthcare reform bill, they are going to have to deal with some serious problems in the area of public relations.  This is a very unpopular bill.  The taxes it calls for would start almost immediately, and the benefits would not start for three or four years.  The Republicans can easily run on a ‘repeal the healthcare reform bill’ platform in November, and if they win, all of this bad public relations will have been for nothing. 

The Wall Street Journal concludes:

“In other words, he’s (President Obama) volunteering Democrats in Congress to march into the fixed bayonets so he can claim an LBJ-level legacy like the Great Society that will be nearly impossible to repeal. This would be an unprecedented act of partisan arrogance that would further mark Democrats as the party of liberal extremism. If they think political passions are bitter now, wait until they pass ObamaCare.”

I agree.  Hang on to your hats and make some popcorn, this may be quite a show!

Yesterday Reuters reported that Dahi Khalfan Tamim, the Dubai police chief, has stated that he would ask the Dubai prosecutor to issue arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, if it could be proven that the Mossad was responsible for the death of Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai in January. 

Just a note about Dubai:

Visitors should be aware that citizens of Israel will not be granted entry to the United Arab Emirates, while any other visitor who has evidence of travel to Israel in their passport will also be prevented from entering the country.

It seems to me that there might be a bit of an anti-Semitism problem in the country to begin with.  As I pointed out in a former post (rightwinggranny.com), there are some real questions as to who killed Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.  Hamas is a Sunni Muslim terrorist organization backed by Iran.  Hezbollah is a Shia terrorist organization backed by Iran.  The killing could have been the result of an inter-terrorism group squabble or an intra-terrorism group squabble.  It is possible that Israel did it, but the initial comments were that it was an uncharacteristically sloppy job if it was done by Mossad.  I am sorry to say that although I consider myself a compassionate person, I really don’t get too upset over the murder of a terrorist.  How many people’s lives will be saved because this man is dead?

An updated article posted at today’s New York Post website reported last night that Charlie Rangel was likely to give up his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee.  This morning MSNBC.com posted an Associated Press story as breaking news stating that Congressman Rangel will temporarily step down from his chairmanship until the ethics committee finishes its work.  He is taking a leave of absence.

I understand that generally speaking American justice assumes innocence until proven guilty, but this is ridiculous. 

According to the MSNBC article:

“Republicans had been calling for Rangel to step aside since last year, when the House ethics panel expanded its investigation into his trips, assets and income, use of rent-controlled apartments in New York and his solicitation of contributions for university center to be named after him. After the panel released its findings last Friday on the Caribbean trips, Rangel started losing support among rank-and-file Democrats as well who said he should step aside as chairman, at least temporarily.”

When confronted with his tax violations, Mr. Rangel blamed it on language difficulties with the country where his rental property was located.  When confronted with violations of House gift-ban rules by taking trips paid for by lobbyists, he blamed communications problems with his staff.  Regardless of the legality of what he has done, does this man ever accomplish anything effectively?

The New York Post story points out:

“The Ethics Committee is pursuing a broader investigation that includes Rangel’s failure to pay taxes on rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic, and his not listing more than $500,000 in assets on financial-disclosure forms, as first reported by the Post.

The panel also is probing an alleged sweetheart deal in which he leased four rent-stabilized Lenox Terrace apartments in Harlem and used his congressional office to raise money for the City University of New York center that bears his name.”

The Democrat party took over Congress by promising to be the most ethical Congress in history.  Mr. Rangel’s problems are not helping them in their bid to stay in power.

One of the ironies of this situation is the circumstances under which Charlie Rangel was elected to Congress.  The representative in his New York City district, Adam Clayton Powell, was under fire for major ethics violations–there was even some question as to whether Mr. Powell lived in New York City.  Charlie Rangel challenged him in a primary in 1970 and won.  Charlie Rangel began his House of Representatives career in 1971.  This year there are already a number of Democrats planning to challenge Mr. Rangel in a Democrat primary for his House seat.  One of those who have formed an exploratory committee is Adam Clayton Powell IV, the son of the man that Charlie Rangel defeated in the 1970 primary.  A further example of ‘what goes around comes around.’

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today about the funding levels of union pension funds.  The article points out the the unions depend on growth in membership to keep funding their pension plans so that the members who have paid in over the years will get paid the pensions they were promised. 

The article points out the according to the Pension Protection Act of 2006, pension plans whose funding levels are below 80 per cent are considered endangered, and plans whose funding levels are below 65 per cent are considered in critical condition.  The article states:

“The SEIU National Industry pension fund is right at the 65% mark. The Newspaper Guild’s plan is at 62.8%, which is interesting in that newspapers seem uninterested in reporting on the problem. Sheet Metal Workers National is only funded to 38%.”

Without increases in union membership, these pension funds are in serious trouble.  Currently, the majority of growth in union membership has been in government employees.  It is interesting that at a time when the private sector was losing jobs rapidly, the number of government jobs has been rapidly increasing.

Scott Johnson at Power Line posted this story on February 28.  This is a story about Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy K-8 public charter school in suburban St. Paul.  The ACLU has sued the school challenging the legality of the fact that the school is a public school paid for by public funds.  This is one of the very few times I agree with the ACLU.

According to the article:

“…the school’s principal is an imam and almost all of its students are Muslim. It is housed in a building that was owned originally by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota (I’m not sure who owns it now). The school has in any event had a mutually beneficial relationship with MAS Minnesota since the school’s inception. The study of Arabic is required at the school. The Arabic comes in handy for the Koranic studies that follow the regular school day.”

I don’t have a problem with the concept of the school–it is the Muslim equivalent of a Catholic School.  The problem is that it is publicly funded with taxpayer money. 

The progression of the lawsuit provides insight into how some Muslims have used our legal system against us:

“Discussing the lawsuit, ACLU Minnesota executive director Chuck Samuelson observed: “The issue with TiZA, frankly, was the incredible commingling of church and state. It’s a theocratic school. It is as plain as the substantial nose on my face.” As a result of Samuelson’s statement of the ACLU Minnesota’s position in the lawsuit, TiZA alleged that Samuelson and the ACLU had defamed it, asserting several counterclaims against the ACLU Minnesota for amounts in excess of $100,000 (i.e., an unlimited amount).”

Although I appreciate the work the ACLU is doing on this case, there should never have been a legal case.  The public officials who set up the school and allowed it to function as a religious school paid for by public money need to be put out of office.  TiZA (as the school is known) has been charged by a local newspaper reporter with intimidating anyone who attempts to bring their existence into the public spotlight and discouraging witnesses in the case to testify.

The article concludes:

“The pending lawsuit is important, and not just for the result to which it might give rise when it is concluded. Along the way it is producing revelations that deserve attention regardless of the result.”

Again, I do not question the right to run a religious school, I do question the right to run a publicly funded religious school.

Today NPR is reporting on the fact that Senator Bunning of Kentucky is temporarily blocking a bill that includes the extension of unemployment benefits, the fix on doctor’s reimbursements from Medicare and TRICARE, and various other things.  (Actually, the most interesting part of that article is the comments left by the readers.)

The Washington Examiner pointed out yesterday that if the Democrats in the Senate truly believed in the PAYGO (Pay-as-you go) statute they passed earlier this year, they would be supporting Senator Bunning. 

Yesterday The Hill reported that Senator Bunning is stating that until the $10 billion can be found to cover the cost of the bill, he plans to block passage of the bill. 

The Democrats in the Senate passed PAYGO earlier this year.  Either they meant it or they didn’t.  If they meant it, they need to take money out of the unspent stimulus money in order to cover the expense of extending unemployment and COBRA.

A large percentage of the media today is painting Senator Bunning as a grumpy old codger throwing a hissy fit.  That is a shame.  If more people had Senator Bunning’s courage, we might eventually be able to balance the federal budget.  Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case.

One of the more interesting things about following the continuing debate on healthcare insurance reform has been watching the language changes as the Democrats attempt to spin the passage of this bill as a good thing.

The Hill yesterday reported a Nancy Pelosi statement that “Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint.”  What?  If the only votes that came from Republicans and Democrats were against the bill, doesn’t that make defeating the bill bipartisan?  Her logic makes my head hurt.

The Washington Times reports today that Democrats are asking for a simple “up-or-down vote” to pass healthcare.  Funny, when the Republicans wanted a simple “up-or-down vote,” it was called the “nuclear option.”  Now it’s just a simple part of majority rule. 

According to the Washington Times, White House Office for Health Reform director, Nancy Ann DeParle, stated Sunday on NBC’s Meet The Press:

“We’re not talking about changing any rules here. All the president is talking about is, do we need to address this problem, and does it make sense to have a simple up-or-down vote on whether or not we want to fix these problems.”

I’m reminded of the scene in Star Wars with Alec Guinness telling the storm trooper, “Nothing to see here, just move along.” 

If you ever want a real voice in our government, now is the time to call your Congressman. 

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal posted an opinion piece by Gail Heriot and Peter Kirsanow about the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, known as “the Akaka bill.”  The bill was passed in the House of Representatives last week. 

According to the article:

“The bill creates a complex federal framework under which most of the nation’s approximately 400,000 ethnic Hawaiians can organize themselves into one vast Indian tribe. It endows the tribe with the “inherent powers and privileges of self-government,” including the privilege of sovereign immunity from lawsuit. It also by clear implication confers the power to tax, to promulgate and enforce a criminal code, and to exercise eminent domain. Hawaii will in effect be two states, not one.”  

Hawaii has traditionally used racial preferences to benefit native Hawaiians.  The State’s Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), established in 1978, oversees income generated from land the federal government gave to the state years ago.  Instead of home and business loans and housing and education programs being used to benefit all Hawaiians, they are used for ethnic Hawaiians.  In order to prevent future legal challenges to racial preferences being used as a basis for these grants, the Akaka bill was drafted.

The article points out:

“…two problems remain. First, the Akaka bill privileges what is in fact a race, not a tribe. The very act of transforming a racial group into a tribal group confers a privilege on one race and not others and is thus unconstitutional. Second, while the Constitution implicitly gives the federal government the power to recognize tribes with a long and continuous history of separate self-governance, it does not give the power to confer sovereignty on new tribes, or to reconstitute a tribe whose members have long since become part of the mainstream culture.”

The Senate will take up the legislation in the coming months.  The Governor of Hawaii, who had formerly supported the legislation, has withdrawn her support for the bill.  The bill represents the establishment of separate rules for people of the same state based on race.  I believe we had that battle back in the 1960’s.  Racial preferences are wrong, regardless of what race is being preferred.

One of the talking points in the Democrat’s push for their healthcare reform bill is that private insurance premiums are rising at an exponential rate that people cannot afford.  That may be true, but a national takeover of healthcare is not the answer.  But let’s look at one of the reason private insurance costs are going up.

On Friday, the Naples News posted a story stating that unless Congress intervened immediately, Medicare payments to doctors will be reduced 21 per cent starting today.  The cut also applies to military members and their families who use the TRICARE program. 

There are some really ugly results of this cut going into effect:

• Doctors may reduce the number of Medicare patients they are willing to treat and refuse to take any more Medicare patients–the rate cut makes treating a Medicare patient more expensive than what the doctor will be paid.  In essence, this is rationing healthcare–if you can’t find a doctor who will treat you, what good is your insurance?
• Because medical costs for doctors will not be reimbursed by Medicare, the doctors will be forced to charge non-Medicare patients more in order to make up the difference.  As the doctors raise their rates, the private insurance companies will raise their rates to cover the increase. 

The cut to Medicare is one of the reasons insurance premiums will raise rapidly, and that cut is controlled by Congress.  At the same time Congress is saying it needs to pass President Obama’s healthcare bill because private healthcare insurance costs are rapidly rising.  Congress is essentially causing a problem it demands legislation to fix.  Would you trust a businessman who did that?

The article points out:

“A reimbursement cut, of a varying amount, from Medicare is expected annually with the start of the new fiscal year on Jan. 1 but Congress usually acts in time to reverse it. In the final days of the session last year, Congress only postponed the 21-percent cut for this year to March 1.”

It sounds to me as if Congress expected to get healthcare reform pushed through by March and thought it could ignore the Medicare cut this year.  There is so much political intrigue swirling around the current push to get healthcare reform through that I really think the right thing to do is tear up the current bill and start from scratch. The goal should be passing a good law that is less than ten pages long.  It would be a challenge, but it could be done!

On Saturday, Mark Steyn posted an article at National Review Online talking about the relationship between the bankruptcy of Greece and President Obama’s healthcare proposal.  Mr. Steyn points out that both events are part of the same story–the events just represent different phases of the story.

Mr. Steyn points out:

“What’s happening in the developed world today isn’t so very hard to understand: The 20th-century Bismarckian welfare state has run out of people to stick it to. In America, the feckless, insatiable boobs in Washington, Sacramento, Albany, and elsewhere are screwing over our kids and grandkids. In Europe, they’ve reached the next stage in social-democratic evolution: There are no kids or grandkids to screw over. The United States has a fertility rate of around 2.1 — or just over two kids per couple. Greece has a fertility rate of about 1.3: Ten grandparents have six kids have four grandkids — ie, the family tree is upside down. Demographers call 1.3 “lowest-low” fertility — the point from which no society has ever recovered. And, compared to Spain and Italy, Greece has the least worst fertility rate in Mediterranean Europe.”

The bottom line here is that any government gets more of what they subsidize.  If the government keeps extending unemployment benefits, unemployed people will be in less of a rush to find a job when they lose one.  If being married means that you pay more in income taxes, fewer people get married.  When it doesn’t pay to be responsible, fewer people become responsible.  When states have reason to believe that if they legislate themselves into financial failure, the federal government will bail them out, they have no incentive to cut costs. 

As the Democrat party continues its push to pass an extremely expensive healthcare reform bill, it potentially puts America further down the road of financial irresponsibility.  We still have the choice of whether we continue on the path that Greece is on or if we turn around while we can still prevent financial disaster.

On January 20th, Palestinian Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was found dead in a hotel room in Dubai hotel.  On February 20th, Reuters reported that the police chief in Dubai suspected that al-Mabhouh had been murdered by Israel’s Mossad.  Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was a Hamas commander. 

On February 27th, the UK Times reported that Mossad was seeing an increase in applications from Israelis interested in joining the agency. 

The article in the UK Times points out:

“Governments across the world are lambasting Israel for what it considers a sloppy job done by agents who were caught on CCTV and may have left behind DNA. In Israel, the operation is being touted as a job well done. Israelis are discussing the killing with a wink, a nod, and pride in the agency, offically known as the Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations.”

OK. Israel is being blamed for a very sloppy killing (very unlike Mossad), the world condemns it, and Israelis try to join Mossad.  But that’s not where the story ends.

Scott Johnson at Power Line  posted a story yesterday which further complicates the issue.  Although the authorities in Dubai are saying that Mossad murdered al-Mabhouh, the only people arrested for the crime so far are two Palestinian Arabs. 

The New York Times reported on February 24th that two of the suspects in the murder named by the Dubai police have fled Dubai for Iran. 

The bottom line here is that this story makes absolutely no sense at all.  The murder was very sloppy for Mossad, the two suspects who were arrested were Palestinian Arabs, and two of the suspects have fled to Iran.  Somehow I don’t think that if I were an Israeli member of Mossad, Iran would be on my list of places to flee. 

I am awaiting further developments in this story before I draw any conclusions as to who did what!

Yesterday’s Providence Journal posted the latest information on the ongoing battle to save Central Falls High School.

The article points out:

“The board of trustees overseeing the school system in Central Falls, one of the poorest communities in the state, voted Tuesday to fire 88 high school teachers and other support staff by the end of the year. Other administrators will also lose their jobs.”

Jane Sessums, president of the Central Falls Teachers’ Union, has stated that the teachers will appeal to the school district’s board of trustees.  She is planning to meet with union leaders and labor representatives before deciding to take additional legal action.

The Superintendent of the school, Frances Gallo, said that initially she hoped that teachers would agree to a series of changes that would help the school improve academically.  These changes included additional training for the teachers, a longer school day, requiring teachers to offer more tutoring, and requiring teachers to eat lunch with the students once a week.  When the teachers union said that they would not agree to these changes without receiving additional pay, the school district offered to pay the teachers for the additional training they would receive over the summer, but not for the longer day or eating lunch with the students once a week.

When the negotiations broke down, Ms. Gallo made the decision to fire all the teachers, with the understanding that many of them would be rehired.

I really believe that this is a case of a union getting in the way of something good being accomplished.  The school district offered to pay for the additional training in the summer.  I think that was appropriate.  With that concession, I don’t understand why the teachers didn’t agree to the suggested changes.  Although it would be my worst nightmare, it seems to me that a dedicated teacher might enjoy lunch with his or her students once a week.  (I might even enjoy it if the cafeteria food was good!)  I also wonder how long the day was going to be extended.  I realize that teachers put in a lot of time after school, but I wonder if a little flexibility on the part of the teachers would have made a big difference here.  Again, I wonder if the union got in the way of progress.

Hopefully this will be resolved in a way that is best for the students at the High School.  I wonder, though, if it is time to reevaluate the role of unions in the public sector.