Investor’s Business Daily posted an article Friday about the success of tort reform in Texas.  Texas instituted tort reform about six years ago to solve its medical malpractice lawsuit overabundance. 

There were three basic areas of change in the tort laws:

1.  In order to sue a medical care provider, an expert report was required within120 days of filing the suit stating that the doctor being sued committed a medical error that caused injuries.  This meant that medical evidence had to accompany the suit–cutting down on the number of frivolous lawsuits. 

2.  A cap was placed on noneconomic damages.  In Texas, that cap only applies to those damages that are not capable of an objective value, 

According to the article:

“The combination of prohibiting doctors and health care providers from being exposed to unlimited and arbitrary awards, and requiring an actual medical report at the outset, have cut the number of medical malpractice lawsuits in Texas in half.”

3.  The law was changed so that the actual lawsuit amount paid had to equal the actual amount paid by the claimant in expenses.

What are the consequences of these three simple changes in the law?  According to the article:

“These common-sense reforms have led to a massive increase in the accessibility of health care in Texas, huge growth in the capital infrastructure of hospitals and clinics, hundreds of millions of dollars more each year in charity care and Texas’ adding more than 16,000 new doctors in just six years.

“And in reducing the actual number of suits to those in which claims are meritorious — a recent Harvard study concluded that up to 85% of all lawsuits brought against medical providers were frivolous — we have created a more equitable system of justice.”

The lesson of Texas tort reform is very simple–common sense can solve a problem without having to spend billions of dollars.  I wish Congress were paying attention to that lesson. 

This is not a partisan article.  Both Democrats and Republicans have been fast and loose with taxpayer money.  That fact is about to catch up with us as the rest of the world debates moving away from the dollar as the global currency.  So what does Congress do–lie to us about increaseing spending!

According to The Hill in its Blog Briefing Room, Senate Democrats are planning to reform Medicare doctor payments separately of their larger healthcare bill.  Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) stated yesterday that this was a gimmick to make the cost of the healthcare bill appear lower than it actually is. 

According to the article:

“The so-called “doc fix” — which lawmakers typically pass every year — combats staggering, annual decreases in Medicare reimbursement payments to physicians and hospitals. Democrats this year want to pass a robust, $250-billion, 10-year overhaul of the formula used to determine those payments, but Republicans are growing increasingly concerned by how lawmakers plan to pay for it — an argument Hatch advanced again on Friday.”

The “doc fix” is needed on a regular basis to insure that doctors do not stop taking Medicare patients.  The “doc fix” is one Medicare expense that will continue to increase even if healthcare reform passes.  The real problem with the healthcare bill is that it makes serious cuts in other areas of Medicare in order to insure young people who may or may not be able to afford health insurance.  You really can’t insure the entire population of the country without either increasing the total cost of insurance or making cuts somewhere.  The current healthcare proposal has chosen to make cuts at the expense of senior citizens.

According to yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, the House Oversight Committee was scheduled to meet Thursday afternoon to mark up several minor pieces of legislation.  According to the article:

“California Republican Darrell Issa notified committee Chairman Edolphus Towns that Mr. Issa would call for a vote to subpoena Countrywide documents from Bank of America, which bought the failed subprime lender last year.”

When Mr. Issa and the GOP members of the committee sat waiting for the meeting to begin, Democrats huddled in a back room without explanation. Thirty-five minutes later, the committee announced that the meeting had been postponed indefinitely.  The article further reminds us:

“Recall that, under the “Friends of Angelo” program, named for former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo, Democratic Senators Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad received sweetheart deals on home mortgages. Mr. Issa wants to uncover the full story on Countrywide’s effort to influence Washington policy makers.”

Does anyone want to make any guesses as to when this committee will meet again and if they will find a way to avoid the subpoenas.

Yesterday The Hill (Blog Briefing Room) reported that Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) stated that the healthcare bill that came out of the Finance Committee was not bi-partisan.  He stated that early negotiations excluded key committee members for the sake of a proposal that ultimately “wasn’t bipartisan,”

The article quotes Senator Rockefeller:

“That’s what happened on the stimulus bill … we got one vote on the stimulus bill and it was always referred to as [the] bipartisan stimulus bill,” Rockefeller added. “It wasn’t, it wasn’t — it was us plus Olympia … it’s game-playing.”

I appreciate his honesty–one Republican vote does not make a bill bi-partisan! 

The information in this article comes from two sources, the New York Post and Power Line. Turkey has been leaning toward radical Islam for a while.  In 2003, the country refused to allow American troops access to their country in order to invade Iraq from the north.  Last week, they refused to let Israel participate in the NATO exercise “Anatolian Eagle”, which is a regularly scheduled military exercise along the Turkish border.  Because Israel was not allowed to participate, American withdrew and the exercise was cancelled.  This is not really a change of direction, but a leap forward in a direction that does not mean good things for western countries.

The article in the New York Post points out what happened after the NATO exercise was cancelled:

“A day later, Turkish and Syrian officials disclosed that their armies had just concluded their own joint military exercise. The same day, the two countries went even further, signing a strategic cooperation pact.”

Part of this is related to the fact that Turkey has been kept out of the European Union.  You really can’t blame the country for looking for an alternative group that would accept it.  Turkish society is becoming more economically comfortable and there is a desire to get along with its neighbors.  In drawing closer to its Arab and Muslim neighbors, Turkey has aired a new drama series on TV which depicts Israeli soldiers as cold-blooded killers who enjoy shooting at defenseless Palestinian children.  This sort of television is one of many reasons that the Jews and the Arabs have a difficult time making peace with each other!

Power Line points out:

“As for the Obama administration, since entering office in January it has abandoned US support for democracy activists throughout the world, in favor of a policy of pure appeasement of US adversaries at the expense of US allies. In keeping with this policy, President Barack Obama paid a preening visit to Ankara where he effectively endorsed the Islamization of Turkish foreign policy that has moved the NATO member into the arms of Teheran’s mullahs. Taken together, the actions of the Bush and Obama White Houses have demoralized Westernized Turks, who now believe that their country is doomed to descend into the depths of Islamist extremism.”

Unfortunately, since the Obama Administration took office, the number of people in the world willing to take a stand for democratic government has decreased drastically.  I hope that by the end of President Obama’s term America will have some credibility left both as an ally and a supporter of democracy. 

Wednesday’s Orlanda Sentinel is reporting that a Florida judge has ruled that Rifqa Bary will be sent back to Ohio and placed with a foster family so that the question of returning her to her parents can be settled in Ohio.  Orange County Circuit Judge Daniel Dawson has, however, refused to move the case to Ohio until the matter of the girl’s immigration status is settled.  The judge has asked for Rifqa Bary’s immigration documents twice, and so far they have not been produced.  It is interesting that according to a previous article at Right Wing Granny the Washington Times reported that Refqa’s father had sold his business and made plans to return to Sri Lanka as soon as he found out that she had become a Christian.

Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe posted an article on August 10, 2008, about honor killings and the fact that they were happening in America.  There were a number of cases he cited where fathers or brothers had killed young girls because the girls had refused arranged marriages, dated someone outside the faith, or done something to ‘dishonor the family.’  Unfortunately, I believe that if Rifqa Bary is sent back to her family, that will be her fate.  Either the judge does not understand the Muslim tradition of honor killings for renouncing Islam or he is choosing to ignore it.  Hopefully if this case makes it to Ohio, the judge will be more familiar with the underside of the Muslim culture.

Today’s Power Line posted an article on the Pay Czar’s decision that Ken Lewis, Chairman of the Board of Bank of America, would work for free in 2009.  Not only will he not be paid for the rest of the year, he has been asked to return the $1 million he has already received this year.  Mr. Lewis agreed to the decision, stating that “he felt it was not in the best interest of Bank of America for him to get involved in a dispute with the paymaster.”

Aside from the obvious question of the government determining anyone’s salary, there are some other interesting things to look at here. 

According to the article:

“… Lewis took on the federal government by testifying that Fed chief Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson, a Democrat who was then Secretary of the Treasury, bullied him into committing what was, in effect, an egregious violation of the securities laws. Bank of America was due to close on its purchase of Merrill Lynch, and Lewis knew that Merrill’s value was plummeting. Lewis testified under oath that Paulson and Bernanke threatened to fire the entire management and board of Bank of America, including Lewis, if Lewis backed out of the Merrill deal or communicated to the bank’s shareholders what a bad deal the purchase had become.”

Essentially the government forced him to violate his duty to his shareholders in order to advance the government’s objectives.

The Obama Administration is very willing to attack anyone who gets in the way of their policies or disagrees with them.  This is another example of that willingness.  If Mr. Lewis had kept quiet about the pressure the Obama Administration put on him, he would probably still be collecting a salary.  Is this the way the Constitution is written? 

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article speaking out against the National Football League’s treatment of Rush Limbaugh as a minority investor in the St. Louis Rams.  The article was too polite to mention that the Rams have an 0 and 5 record this year, and any change anywhere would probably be an improvement.

Evidently, part of the problem here is the upcoming contract talks between the player representatives and the league owners regarding a collective bargaining agreement.  The fact that Rush Limbaugh would be drawn into that is a bit ridiculous.   Actually, the whole thing would be laughable if it were not an indication of what is happening to free speech in this country.  Evidently politically incorrect speech is not acceptable and can prevent you from pursuing dreams that otherwise would be attainable.

The Wall Street Journal article points out:

“What happened here, and is happening elsewhere in American life, is that Mr. Limbaugh’s outspoken political conservatism is being deemed sufficient reason to ostracize him from polite society. By contrast, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, who fires off his own brand of high-velocity, left-wing political commentary but lacks Mr. Limbaugh’s sense of humor, appears weekly as co-host of NBC’s “Football Night in America.” We haven’t heard anyone on the right say Mr. Olbermann’s nightly ad-hominem rants should disqualify him from hanging around the NFL. Al Franken made it all the way to the U.S. Senate on a river of political vitriol.”

We all need to remember that when one person loses his right to speak freely without fear of consequences, we all lose that right!

Today’s Washington Times posted an article about the White House war against Fox News.  According to the article:

“Last weekend, the Obama administration declared war. “We’re going to treat [Fox News] the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, White House communications director. She claimed, “We don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” The administration has begun using a government blog to regularly attack what it calls “Fox lies.””

There is an old quote attributed to Mark Twain that says, “Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.”  I think the White House would be wise to take this advice.  The article points out that President Nixon went after the Washington Post.  We know how that went.

The article cites a few examples of the Obama Administration trying to control opposition:

“With Democrats controlling both Congress and the presidency, the Obama administration is trying to squash dissent. The administration is not content with attacking critical press. It is boldly proceeding with plans for the Federal Communications Commission to meddle in conservative talk radio. It threatens insurance companies with not being able to participate in federal programs if those companies attempt mildly to warn customers about how new health care legislation will affect them.”

This sort of activity is not a good thing for a democracy. 

Townhall.com posted an article yesterday on the fight over who will actually pay for the ‘free’ healthcare the government is promising all of us.  Congress is estimating the cost of healthcare at approximately $900 billion over ten years.  Labor unions, special interest groups, and insurance companies are all lobbying hard to make sure they are not the ones who have to pay for the new program. 

The unions do not want their ‘Cadillac’ healthcare plans taxed to pay for the program.  The insurance companies do not want the government running their businesses and interfering with their business practices.  The elderly are protesting the proposed cuts to the Medicare Advantage program. 

It seems as if even people who have been convinced that nationalized healthcare is a good idea are not interested in paying for it.  I myself would be willing to support healthcare reform as soon as Congress tries it on themselves for a year or two.

Today’s Washington Times posted an article on a study showing how some of the money appropriated for guns and ammunition for our troops is actually being spent.  There are $2.6 billion being put into pet projects.  The money was largely taken from accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to the article, some of the projects include:

“$25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.”  

The study was conducted by Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

The article reports:

“Mr. Wheeler said that senators took most of the cash for the projects from the “operations and maintenance” or O&M accounts.

“These are the accounts that pay for troop training, repairs, spares and supplies for vehicles, weapons, ships and planes, food and fuel,” Mr. Wheeler said.”

There is already a privately-funded World War II museum in New Orleans.  It is a fantastic musuem–I have been there.  There is no need to put a publicly funded museum of the same time period in the same place.  There is not a problem with an educational institute named after Senator Kennedy, but why does it have to be publicly funded at the expense of our soldiers?

We are fighting a war in Afghanistan.  If Congress continues to take money away from that war effort, our chances of actually winning it will decrease substantially. 

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a story tonight that is truly sad.  Rush Limbaugh has withdrawn as part of a group of investors that was trying to buy to NFL football team the St. Louis Rams.  It really doesn’t matter to me who owns the team.  What saddens me is the false accusations against him that have caused the controversy which resulted in his being forced to withdraw from the group buying the team.

Free speech is a basic right of the U. S. Constitution.  There is no right written into the Constitution that says we have the freedom not to be offended.  If you are looking for an excuse to be offended by someone else’s free speech, you will probably never have to look very far. 

I think it is truly sad that a man who has worked as hard to be a success as Rush Limbaugh has can be prevented from doing something that he would genuinely enjoy doing by people who do not share his opinions making false accusations against him.   Rush Limbaugh is not a racist.  Also, anyone who has ever listened to Rush Limbaugh knows that he thoroughly enjoys football and is quite knowledgeable about the sport.  It is truly a shame that Rush Limbaugh will be denied one of his dreams by people who simply cannot stand to see someone who disagrees with them succeed.

On Monday, the website of Fox News posted an article about the recent attacks on Fox News by the Obama White House.  While I can understand the President’s frustration with a news service that does not follow the crowd in supporting him, attacking a reputable news outlet is tacky.  The President has shunned Fox News recently–the week that he appeared on five Sunday Shows, he did not appear on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. 

This kind of pettiness is beneath a President.  If George Bush had ostracized every news outlet that negatively reported on him, we would never have seen him on the news.  President Obama has every right to appear on whatever programs he chooses (or not), but this White House has taken it farther than that. 

According to the article:

“”What I think is fair to say about Fox — and certainly it’s the way we
view it — is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party,”
said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. “They
take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition
research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend
they’re a news network the way CNN is.””

The quote that comes to my mind when I hear this is the World War II quote, “You know you are getting near the target when you start taking flak.”  Fox News has been increasing its ratings during all of the Obama Administration.  Fox News has both news shows and opinion shows, and they are good about differentiating between the two.  To paraphrase another President, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Tuesday’s Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about offshore drilling and its effect on the environment.  As you read the article, it becomes very obvious that things are not always what they appear to be.

The article cites a Florida oceanographer working for the Interior Department who studied the impact of relatively new offshore oil drilling in the Arctic off of Alaska. 

According to the article:

“”We found early in the process that impacts to the environment from offshore drilling were minimal,” said John Trefry, a marine and environmental systems professor at the Florida Institute of Technology. “In fact, the entire offshore area was near-pristine.””

Obviously this was not what he thought he would find.  There are two things to be considered in the discussion of offshore drilling.  The first is that when an oil rig is put into the ocean, it attracts marine life.  The article reports that:

“Paul Sammarco, a marine biologist at the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, surveyed abandoned drilling rigs and discovered that they had “spawned lush marine habitats that are home to a profusion of rare corals and 10,000 to 30,000 fish each.””

The other thing to consider is the precautions oil companies take in order to avoid spills and leakage.  The article further states:

“According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, between 1985 and 2001, spills from offshore platforms and pipelines accounted for only 2% of the oil released in U.S. waters.”

The majority of oil in the marine environment is the result of oil seeps.  The article mentions that:

“In Southern California, they (oil seeps) contribute 98% of the crude in the offshore zone. Those same natural seeps are responsible for 60% of the oil found in the North American marine environment.”

At a time when the price of oil is again climbing and most of the oil in the world is owned by countries not friendly to America, it would be wise to explore offshore drilling before the price climbs higher and the oil-producing countries become even less friendly.  Enviromental studies show that offshore drilling is not the problem it was once thought to be.

Reuters is reporting today:

“…Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned major powers on Wednesday
against intimidating Iran and said talk of sanctions against the
Islamic Republic over its nuclear programme was “premature”.”

Why, then, did we break our agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic on a missile defense shield?  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had visited Russia for two days of talks, and Prime Minister Putin did not even meet with her–Putin left for a trip to the Russian Far East and China before her arrival in Moscow.

Commenting on the removal of the missile shield from Poland and the Czech Republic, Putin said that he hoped the United States would not renege on its promise to scrap plans for an anti-missile system in central Europe.  Maybe I’m missing something, but that sounds as if the missile defense system that was promised in the future is going to be a problem.

Generally speaking, the rule for dealing with dictators and tyrants is that they only understand strength.  Any concessions made are seen as weakness they can exploit.  It seems to me that the current administration in America does not realize this and is making the same kind of mistake that Neville Chamberlain made in negotiating with Hitler.

According to today’s Washington Times, Israel is seriously considering placing travel restrictions on its senior officials and military officers.  These leaders will not be allowed to travel to Europe because the Israel government fears they will be subject to arrest because of a disputed U.N. report that accuses the Jewish state of targeting civilians in its Gaza war earlier this year. 

The article reminds us:

“Israel launched the offensive to stop the militant Palestinian group Hamas from firing rockets on Israeli cities from Gaza, which Hamas controls. While the war is viewed in Israel as a tactical success, its large civilian death toll – estimated at 926 by Palestinian rights groups and at least 295 by Israel – has created significant diplomatic fallout.”

One of the things to remember in any war–particularly in the Middle East–is that there is a public relations war as well as a military war.  The Arabs are particularly known to place weapons in civilian areas in order to increase civilian casualties and make their enemy look bad.  One of the problems we have continually had in Iraq is the placing of weapons in mosques and the use of mosques as attack platforms.  The theory is that we will not attack a mosque and if we do, the enemy can use the attack in publicity against us.  That is the situtation in Gaza.

Does anyone remember why Israel went into Gaza?  According to the Israel Ministry Of Foreign Affairs:

“Rocket and mortar shell fire from the Gaza Strip continues as the Palestinian terrorist organizations’ preferred form of attack. In 2007, 896 hits were identified in Israeli territory, compared with 946 in 2006, the year with the largest number.  The trend continues in 2008.  In May 2007 alone Palestinians launched some 300 Kassam rockets from Gaza at Sderot and the western Negev.  Hamas openly claimed responsibility for the attack.”

Would America tolerate that sort of rocket attacks on a daily basis from a neighboring country?  What would our response be?  Would any country tolerate that sort of daily attack?  I think not.

On Friday, the BBC posted an article entitled, “What happened to global warming?”  The article states that for the past eleven years there has been no increase in global temperatures.  During that time carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise.  This contradicts the climate models some scientists have used to predict future climate changes.

In a related story at Watts Up With That, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory has sent out a press release saying that scientists from across the country have successfully found a way to incorporate the nitrogen cycle into climate change predictions.  I have no idea what the science here is, but what this means to me is that scientists are still learning in their predictions of climate change.

There is currently a total lack of agreement on what the trends in temperature will be over the coming years.  Some scientists predict global warming, some predict global cooling.  Generally speaking, the jury is still out.  Keeping this in mind, it might be a good idea for the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to move cautiously to combat ‘global warming’ rather than taking drastic action to solve a problem that may not exist.

According to yesterday’s The Hill, the Senate Finance Committee will be voting on healthcare reform today.  As this goes forward, I would like to reference an article that appeared Sunday in the Boston Globe stating what is happening with healthcare reform in Massachusetts.

In 2006 Massachusetts enacted healthcare reform.  The bill required everyone in the state to have health insurance, penalized people for not having it, and provided state plans for those who could not afford private insurance.  Sound familiar?

The article in the Boston Globe is an update on how that plan is working.  Because the costs of this plan have been so high, the state is planning to shake up how providers are paid in order to reduce the cost of the plan.  The plan is to keep patients in a defined provider network, or direct them to lower-cost hospitals.  Currently more than 40 percent of hospital care is provided in expensive academic medical centers and where many insurance policies allow patients access to large numbers of providers.

The article points out:

“A state commission recommended in July that insurers largely scrap the current fee-for-service system – in which insurers pay doctors, hospitals, and other providers a negotiated fee for each procedure and visit – and instead pay providers a per-patient annual fee to cover all of the patient’s medical care.”

“…Under a global payment system, doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers would form large networks, called accountable care organizations, that would provide most of the care for individual patients and divvy up the payments. Doctors would try to coordinate patients’ care within these networks, which would share electronic medical records and treatment plans. And to manage costs, they would try to direct patients to the hospital within the network that could provide good-quality care at the lowest cost, while generally using teaching hospitals for advanced care.” 

What these ideas show is that a state is not designed to finance, provide, or manage the healthcare of its residents.  Some businesses work better in the private sector.

If you truly want to cut the cost of healthcare and reduce its impact on the federal deficit, tort reform will do that.  The Congressional Budget Office wrote a letter to Orrin Hatch on October 9, 2009, explaining the impact tort reform would have on medical expenses in this country.  Please read the letter.  The CBO estimates that tort reform would reduce the federal deficit $54 billion over the next ten years.  It seems to me that the way forward is tort reform, not the creation of a federally-funded healthcare nightmare.

According to the blog briefing room at The Hill, healthcare reform could cost as much as $4,000 a year in higher premiums for every family.  This has to do with the concept of the risk pool.  Unless the penalty for not having insurance is increased to the point where everyone will have insurance, the risk pool will not be large enough to finance the program.

Just a few notes, I live in Massachusetts where we have a state healthcare program that does require all people in the state to have health insurance.  There have been more than a few problems with the program.  First of all, it has cost far more than was ever predicted.  It has reached the point where hospitals were not being reimbursed in a timely fashion because the state did not have the money–the hospitals were forced to wait until the beginning on the state’s fiscal year to get paid.  That doesn’t solve the problem of excessive cost–it simply pushes it off until the next year.  There are also people who had basic healthcare coverage–they paid out of pocket for routine doctor’s visits but were covered in case of accident or serious illness.  Many of these people were told that their policies did not qualify under the state’s insurance requirements–they had to get more expensive policies that covered routine doctor’s visits.  They were forced to pay significantly more in insurance premiums.  Again, this has to do with increasing the risk pool–by requiring all people to carry extensive health insurance, even if they are happy with basic coverage, you increase the amount of money in the system and theoretically everyone pays less.  It’s a great idea, but it doesn’t always work that way.

The bill Congress is voting on Tuesday is a bad bill.  It needs to be scrapped and rewritten to include tort reform and portability of health insurance across state lines.  Those are the changes that will benefit all of us–not just a few well-connected states. 

Robert Knight at Townhall.com posted an article today on the current progress of healthcare legislation.  The gyrations the Democrat Congress is going through to pass this bill are amazing.  I’m not sure they are constitutional, and if they are constitutional, they are outrageous.

The text of the Max Baucus bill has been kept secret.  No one knows what is actually in it!  Yet, Congress is voting on it. 

According to the article:

“Bits and pieces are leaking out, but entire sections will be added later. That’s what happened with the House version. Nobody read the bill, and 75 “phantom” amendments were added after the vote. A similar maneuver happened in the Senate when a key committee approved another version of a sweeping health care bill in July without seeing the text. Actual language was unveiled months later in September.”

The bill includes such wonders as:

Increasing taxes by creating higher levels in order for itemized expenses to be deducted.

Exempting Congress from the mandatory coverage provision.

Taxing Class II medical devices.

Different tax rates for people in different states.  Oddly enough, the federal government is covering the increased cost of Medicare in Nevada and several other states for the next five years–other states will have to pay for the increase themselves.

Newsbusters posted an article on how Harry Reid plans to get this bill passed.  There is also an article at CNSnews explaining how the bill could be passed and signed within the week.  This is not good news for the country.

According to John Hinderaker Power Line today, politics has invaded the National Football League Players’ Union.  The union’s executive director, DeMaurice Smith, on Saturday made a move to solidify the union against a bid by conservative talk show radio host Rush Limbaugh as part of a group that aims to purchase the St. Louis Rams. 

According to the article:

“In an e-mail to the union’s executive committee on Saturday specifically addressing Limbaugh’s bid, Smith said, “I’ve spoken to the Commissioner [Roger Goodell] and I understand that this ownership consideration is in the early stages. But sport in America is at its best when it unifies, gives all of us reason to cheer, and when it transcends. Our sport does exactly that when it overcomes division and rejects discrimination and hatred.””

What in the world does he mean?  Doesn’t Rush Limbaugh have a right to be part owner of a football team if he has the money?  Is this discrimination?  Just because Rush Limbaugh is a Conservative icon?   I hope cooler heads prevail.  This is just wrong.  It used to be ok in this country to have an opinion different from the ‘majority’ or different from the ‘people who control the media’.  Have we reached the point where being an outspoken Conservative will result in being denied basic freedom to do business as you please (within the law, of course)?  Is this a hate crime?

Today’s Washington Times reported that the Dalai Lama has ended his visit to Washington, D. C.  He gave a lecture at American University, dropped by a prominent synagogue for the last day of the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, he visited the grave of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, visited with Chinese-Americans, congressional aides, had a closed meeting with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and with the State Department’s special coordinator for Tibetan issues, and ended with a lunch Saturday at the home of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat.  But he never met with President Obama.

According to the article:

“Although President Obama declined to meet with the Dalai Lama because of his upcoming visit to China next month, the Buddhist leader sent him a letter of congratulations Friday for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. The Dalai Lama was awarded the same prize in 1989.

“Ms. Saunders said plans are to have the Dalai Lama return to Washington in December to meet with President Obama.”

I am embarrassed that our President chose not to meet with the Dalai Lama because he didn’t want to upset China.  The last time I checked, the Dalai Lama was a force for peace and freedom–China is neither.  This is another example of being on the wrong side of the equation.  President Obama has dissed Britain, Poland, the Czech Republic, Israel, and the constitution of Honduras while cozying up to Iran, Venezuela, China, and a friend of Hugo Chavez who wants to be president of Honduras for life.  This is ridiculous!

Jonah Goldberg at National Review Online posted an article Friday commenting on the fact that CNN felt it necessary to fact check a Saturday Night Live skit regarding President Obama’s accomplisments in office.  Huh?

The skit had a fake President Obama listing his accomplishments as ‘jack’ and ‘squat’.  It was a funny skit.  CNN chose to fact check the skit on Wolf Blitzer’s,Situation Room.  Why?  Were the skits depicting Sarah Palin as an idiot every fact checked on CNN?  What about the skits involving George Bush or Bill Clinton (or my favorite–the Halloween skit involving Hillary, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and John Edwards (Halloween 2007). 

The double standard involved in news coverage and now even in humor is ridiculous.  It’s time for everyone to back up, take a deep breath, and make an honest effort to be fair.  Is it possible?

Yesterday at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey posted an article explaining how much money would be saved in healthcare costs by instituting tort reform. 

According to the article:

“According to CBO director Douglas Elmendorf on his blog, the CBO studied the impact of both the reduced cost of litigation and the elimination of defensive medicine that would result with tort reform.  Elmendorf says that tort reform would reduce the federal deficit $54 billion over the next ten years, more than the fee Baucus plans to charge insurers for the privilege of existence (via MarySue at Ruby Slippers).

“…That figure includes savings of roughly $41 billion from Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, as well as an increase in tax revenues of roughly $13 billion from a reduction in private health care costs that would lead to higher taxable wages.”

This makes more sense than scrapping the best healthcare system in the world for eleven hundred pages of legal gobbletygook.  Tort reform is not in any of the packages currently under consideration by Congress.  I hope at some point it will be considered.

Larry Kudlow posted an article at National Review yesterday with his ideas on how to strengthen the dollar.  He lists the solutions that have historically been used to strengthen the dollar.  A stable dollar will stop inflationary pressures.  He also points out that in the past, lower taxes have resulted in economic growth and lower unemployment.  We also need to cut government spending.

He states in the article:

“Put simply, the Mundell-Laffer model exercises monetary restraint to save the dollar — and low marginal tax rates for economic-growth incentives that benefit investors, risk takers, small businesses, and workers. Right now, for therapy, the Fed should begin moving excess cash from the economy, and they should raise their target rate. Take a page from the Reserve Bank of Australia’s playbook and move rates higher.

“In addition, the Treasury ought to get out there and buy these unwanted dollars in the marketplace. Just go out there and bid for them. And they need to stop printing so much debt from Congress. All this massive spending and borrowing is killing us. We need to be slashing tax rates on large and small businesses. There’s just no better place to begin job creation. And leave the Bush tax cuts in place, for heaven’s sake.”

If we do not cut federal spending and the tax burden on Americans in the very near future, we will not have an economy to save.