President Obama has promised all of us that if we are happy with our present healthcare–like our plan, like our doctor, etc.–we will be able to keep it.  Yesterday’s Washington Post takes a look at that idea.

According to the article:

“Legislation written by three House committees and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions would allow eligible employers to move workers into a new marketplace for insurance, where they could choose from various coverage options.

“In the marketplace, called an exchange or gateway, employees could end up with more and better options, analysts say. Even a top Republican staffer to the Senate committee, who is not authorized to speak for the record, agrees with that assessment. But Democratic legislative aides said there is no assurance that any of the options offered in the exchange would be the same as employees’ current coverage.”

The thing to keep in mind while watching the healthcare debate is that the actual bill will be drafted in committee by the House and the Senate and will probably include ideas from all bills involved.  There are a few things to look for if the administration claims that government healthcare will save us money.  Watch for the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the bill that comes out of committee.  Examine the final bill carefully to see if tort reform is included (if not, savings will probably be nonexistent or minimal) and if health insurance companies will be allowed to write new private policies after the bill is enacted.  Also watch to see what cuts are being made to Medicare in order to fund parts of the bill. 

Understand, also, that the opposition is not coming from the Republicans–they are so powerless in Washington right now, their opposition would be futile.  The Democrats could pass any healthcare bill they wanted in a second if all Democrats supported it–the problem is that many Democrats realize that if they vote for any of the current bills, this will be their last term in Congress.

I will admit to being a football fan, and I have watched this story develop.  I have totally mixed emotions about Michael Vick playing football again.  Ed Morrissey posted his observations (and an interesting poll) at Hot Air yesterday.  Mr. Morrissey was in Pittsburgh when the announcement that the Eagles had signed Michael Vick was made.  In talking with people at the conference he was attending, he found that most of them opposed the decision to let Michael Vick play professional football again.  When he put a poll up at Hot Air, the response was not the same.

Ed Morrissey points out:

“Vick paid the price for his crimes, as determined by the court. His crime didn’t involve the NFL or the games on the field — unlike, say, gambling on his own team might have involved the NFL. Now that Vick has been released, he should have an opportunity to earn a living. If an NFL team sees him and his talent as a net gain as balanced against his reputation, then the two of them should be able to contract for his services. Of course, fans can also vote with their feet. If football fans don’t like Michael Vick, they can avoid buying tickets to Eagles games, or jeer Vick and the Eagles on the field when they appear. That’s perfectly legitimate, too.

“I think the NFL did the right thing by lifting the ban after Vick’s release. I’m not especially supportive of the Eagles’ decision to pay Vick to play football per se, but I definitely believe they should not have been blocked from doing so.” 

I have very mixed emotions on this whole thing,  The fact that Michael Vick has currently surrounded himself with some very positive role models may be an indication that he is truly sorry for what he has done and is planning to pursue more constructive uses of his time.  The fact that Tony Dungy is working with him as an advisor is a very positive thing.  Michael Vick has paid a price for his crimes.  If he has truly changed, he does deserve a second chance.

I would like to point out some of the contradictions in what the President is saying in support of the healthcare reform bill and what the lawmakers are actually legislating.  My source for the following statements is defendyourhealthcare.us:

“Obama says: “Nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits.  Medicare benefits are there because people contributed into a system.  It works.  We don’t want to change it.””

According to the article, as the President is saying this:

“The Congressional majority wants to pay for its $1 trillion health bills with a $500+ billion cut to Medicare. This cut will come just as Medicare enrollment increases by 30%.  Less money and more patients will necessitate rationing.”

According the the article:

Obama says: “But keep in mind – I mean this is something that I can’t emphasize enough – you don’t have to participate.  If you are happy with the health care that you’ve  got, then keep it.”

According to the article, as the President is saying this:

Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these “qualified plans.” If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year “grace period” to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you’ll have less time.

These are only two examples of the lies being told by people who are either misinformed or trying to fool the electorate.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg.com is reporting that the President and the Democrats are still supporting a ‘public option’ (which will eventually drive out private healthcare).  All of us need to watch carefully to see what is actually in the small print of the bill that Congress eventually puts together.

It is important to remember as this debate continues that the Democrat Party controls both the House of Representatives and the Senate.  Even though the Republicans are being blamed for the fact that the healthcare bill is bogged down in Congress, they do not have the ability to block any legislature the Democrats want to pass.  If all the Democrats supported any of the healthcare reform bills, they would have passed by now.  It is also important to remember that the reason Hillary’s healthcare bill failed was that the details were made public, and the public objected.  That is why it is so diffficult to get information on what is in the healthcare bills currently proposed.

In today’s Rasmussen Reports, Michael Barone has an open letter to those young voters who voted for Barack Obama.  Sixty-six percent of the the young voters (under age 30) voted for President Obama; thirty-two voted against him.  Voters over 30 voted 50 percent for President Obama and 49 percent against. 

In the article, Michael Barone suggests a way to measure the Obama Presidency:

“I ask you to examine them through the prism of a book published in 1999, when most of you were too young to vote: “The Future and Its Enemies,” by Virginia Postrel (an Obama voter, too, by the way). Postrel assesses policies based not on whether they are liberal or conservative but on whether they are dynamist — promoting or leaving room for change — or stasist — tending to freeze institutions and people in place.” 

Mr. Barone points out that President Obama campaigned as a President of change, but a close look at his policies shows not change, but rather the reinforcing of current institutions.

Mr. Barone ends his article with this thought:

“The larger point is this: You want policies that will enable you to choose your future. Obama backs policies that would let centralized authorities choose much of your future for you. Is this the hope and change you want?” 

The Wall Street Journal ran an article on August 9 regarding the upcoming 2010 Census.  This Census will determine the number of Congressional Representatives for each state and the number of Electoral College votes.  That is the Constitutional purpose of the Census.

The upcoming Census plans to count all people in the country, legally or illegally.  This will increase the number of Representatives and Electoral College votes in states with large numbers of illegal aliens and lessen the actual representation of states without large illegal alien populations. 

According to the article:

“The 2010 census will use only the short form. The long form has been replaced by the Census Bureau’s ongoing American Community Survey. Dr. Elizabeth Grieco, chief of the Census Bureau’s Immigration Statistics Staff, told us in a recent interview that the 2010 census short form does not ask about citizenship because “Congress has not asked us to do that.””

I am very uncomfortable with the scenario I see playing out in the 2010 Census.  Remember the voter fraud perpetrated by ACORN in 2008 [The Dallas Morning News (along with many other news outlets) reported that ACORN had registered the Dallas Cowboys football team starting line-up to vote in Nevada].  The potential for voter fraud and unjustified changes in the Electoral College is enormous.  If you look at the map below, you realize that some of the states with the highest illegal populations are states that are very likely to vote Democrat.  If you give more Electoral College votes to these states based on a large illegal population, you are essentially allowing people here illegally to vote in the presidential election and depriving other states of equal representation for their citizens.  (The map came from a Power Line article posted today about a Gallop Poll of conservative and liberal views in each state.)

Ok.  I admit it.  I am a part of the Woodstock generation.  I didn’t go to Woodstock.  On the day of the concert my active-duty Navy husband and I were on our way to Long Island to visit his parents.  We had no idea that there was such a thing as Woodstock.  We thought the traffic jam in Westchester County looked a little unusual for a Westchester County traffic jam, but somehow we managed to deal with it.

The American Thinker ran a piece on Woodstock yesterday.  Was it all important or was it nothing?  I guess it represented one part of the culture of that time and represented the drastic changes that were taking place in the culture at that time.  Think back to the things that changed as the 1960’s ended.

Many of the baby boomers chose unhealthy lifestyles as a way to deal with the pressures around them.  Admittedly, growing up as an early boomer had its challenges–we practiced hiding under our desks in elementary school to protect ourselves from nuclear attack, and we were told to be afraid when Russia launched the first space satelite.  In our teenage years and young twenties, we saw a President assassinated (over and over again on television), we saw a man ‘who had a dream’ killed in Memphis, and a young Senator killed in California.  Regardless of your politics, all three of these men represented hope to a new generation coming of age.  We saw riots in some of our major cities and it seemed as if our country was falling apart and our government wasn’t listening (kind of like today).  

For some of the boomers, the answer was pure rebellion against authority.  To me, that is what Woodstock was about.  This was no deep intellectual event–it was a bunch of teenagers and young adults having a last fling before taking on the responsibility of being adults.  As in every generation before and since, some of them grew up to take responsibility as adults and accomplish great things, and some didn’t! 

Boomers had their challenges, but so did the generation that went through the depression and fought World War II, the difference is that the boomers have never really gotten over themselves. 

Actually, I am a little late to this story, but I think the message in it is ‘pay attention’ and find out the background of the person making the claim.

On Thursday, the Houston Chronicle reported that U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee stated that she had never met Roxana Mayer, a University of Houston graduate student and Texas Obama delegate who had falsely identified herself as a pediatric physician at the congresswoman’s health care reform town hall meeting this week. 

According to the article, there was no record at the Texas Medical Board of Ms. Mayer having a medical license.  The article further reports:

“When queried by the Houston Chronicle if she held a medical license outside Texas, she responded via e-mail: “If my initial statement to the Houston Chronicle can not be substantiated, then I understand your responsibility to omit it.””

Meanwhile, according to the article:

“A single protester at Jackson Lee’s event at St. Joseph’s, Bryan Klein, appeared at the conference room door, distributing leaflets.

He was escorted from the hospital by guards but continued to hand out leaflets outside the front door.

Hospital spokeswoman Fritz Guthrie said Klein was removed because the session was closed to the public.”

The current healthcare debate is very important to the future of our country.  An honest debate at this point would be very helpful.  We need a little more common sense and honesty from our representatives in Congress and a little less chutzpah! 

If you have noticed that articles on this website looked a little different toward the end of last week, it is because I am having computer problems.  I hope to have them totally solved by the end of next week.  Meanwhile, life has been interesting.  The program I use for my blog is evidently not compatible with the latest update of Internet Explorer, so the only computer I can use to blog is my own (on which I have not updated Internet Explorer).  When my wireless internet connection died last week, I was forced on to either of two computers, both of which have updated versions of Internet Explorer.  My husband then loaded Firefox on those computers so that I could use them to blog.  It works, but like everyone else, I am most comfortable on my own computer.  Some of the things I routinely do very easily I haven’t figured out how to do yet.  Anyway, my apologies for any articles with lots of white space at the end and other little glitches.  Hopefully all will be well by the end of next week!

Yesterday’s National Review Online posted an article by Andrew McCarthy dealing with some of the name calling that has been going on regarding the healthcare bill.  Mort Kondracke has blasted Rush Limbaugh for comparing Democrats to Nazis.  That wasn’t one of Rush Limbaugh’s more tactful comments, but let’s look at it in context. 

According to the article:

“Nancy Pelosi, started this episode by comparing American citizens who oppose Obamacare to the Nazis and asserting that her political opponents were donning “swastikas.” (Sen. Barbara Boxer simultaneously ripped Obamacare dissenters for their Brooks Brothers suits — it’s not altogether clear where on the twill the swastika goes.) Pelosi’s tactic was the shopworn smear we on the right have dealt with for six decades. There is no conceivable substantive connection between opposition to Obamacare and German National Socialism — they are antithetical.”

The article continues:

“The comparison he drew was a substantive one: between the Democrats’ proposal for socialized medicine and the German installation of socialized medicine beginning with Bismarck and reaching its shocking apotheosis with Hitler’s National Socialism. (A transcript of what he actually contended is here, and his website has other relevant transcripts, since the argument was reiterated other times during the week.) The point was to show that if Pelosi wanted to engage in Nazi comparisons, the health-care policies of Nazi Germany had far more in common with the health-care policies of the Democrats than with those of the conservative opposition, which wants health care kept private and reforms to be market-based.”

The bottom line for me is this.  Politics in America since I have been paying attention has not always been constructive.  Calling people who oppose a policy near and dear to your heart Nazis is tacky.  Comparing proposed legislation to past laws in other countries is informative.  Admittedly, Nazi is a word that stirs things up to the point where it inhibits real debate, but in the case of German socialized medicine, it was accurately used.  I have read the White House emails on healthcare.  They disagree with the wording in the actual bill!  I am not sure an honest debate is possible on this issue.  What needs to happen is that every American needs to read the bill (there are summaries of the bill available that tell you where to look for key points) and make up their own mind.  One of the best I have found is at ClassicalIdeals.com.  We need to do our own research because unfortunately what we are being told is not the truth.

Yesterday’s Power Line posted an article breaking down the numbers of who the people who do not have health insurance are.  President Obama cites the number of unemployed as nearly 46 million Americans.  Power Line has the breakdown of who these people are.   About 6.5 million are enrolled in Medicaid or S-CHIP but didn’t tell the census taker.  (Why is the census taker asking about health insurance?)  There are about 4.5 million people who are eligible for Medicaid or S-CHIP but have not enrolled.  There are about 9.5 million non-citizens who do not have health insurance (they still manage to get care through emergency rooms, etc.)  There are another 10 million who earn an income more than three times the poverty line, but choose not to be insured. The actual number remaining is about 15.5 million (one-third of Obama’s 46 million) who actually are
uninsured, cannot become insured simply by enrolling in a free program,
are U.S. citizens, and cannot easily afford to purchase insurance.
About 5 million members of this cohort are childless adults.

The article points out:

“And keep in mind that being uninsured is not the same as having to pay
(or pay much) for treatment. I’ve heard illegal immigrants say that
they find ways to receive free or inexpensive treatment for themselves
and their children. In general, I’ve read (though I can’t find the
source) that the uninsured receive about half the amount of money per
capita to pay for medical treatment that the insured receive.”

The currently proposed legislation is basically unfair.  The article further states:

“One of the purposes of most health care “reform” proposals, stated or
unstated, is to force these young people into the system–to force
them, that is, to contribute money to pay the medical bills of others,
beyond what they already pay in Medicare taxes. Whatever you think of
either the justice or the wisdom of such a policy, it is not worth
turning our health care system upside down in order to achieve.”

President Obama is on a path that will pit young workers against retirees in the area of healthcare.  Younger workers who have chosen not to be insured will now be forced into insurance and insurance payments that they do not want.  You will eventually have class warfare between the young and the elderly.

Yesterday’s Washington Times posted an article about a court case involving a northern Florida school principal and an
athletic director who are facing criminal charges and up to six months
in jail over their offer of a mealtime prayer. Liberty Counsel, an Orlando-based legal group is defending the two school officials who have been charged criminally for praying.

The article also points out:

“In January, the Santa Rosa County School District settled out of
court with the ACLU, agreeing to several things, including a provision
to bar all school employees from promoting or sponsoring prayers during
school-sponsored events; holding school events at church venues when a
secular alternative was available; or promoting their religious beliefs
or attempting to convert students in class or during school-sponsored
events.

“Mr. Staver said the district also agreed to forbid senior class
President Mary Allen from speaking at the school’s May 30 graduation
ceremony on the chance that the young woman, a known Christian, might
say something religious.

“She was the first student body president in 33 years not allowed to speak,” he said.”

Where is the lawsuit by the student who was denied her right to speak?

Whatever happened to manners?  It just seems to me that if someone is praying and you don’t agree with the fact that they are praying or their prayer, you could just sit quietly until they are done.  I really think criminal charges in this case are a little ridiculous.  Don’t we have enough of a backup in our courts?

CBS News reported yesterday on worries about President Obama’s safety.  They are concerned that objections to the healthcare bill are fomenting racial hatred and danger for the President.  I’m not disputing the fact that there are people in this country that are ‘over the line,’ but those people have always been with us.  That is why we have people in charge of protecting the President.  But the change in tone in the press over the past few years is interesting.

In 2006 the film DEATH OF A PRESIDENT premiered at the 2006 Toronto International Film Festival on September 10.  It dealt with the assassination of George W. Bush, who was President at the time.

According to Wikipedia:

“Of the critics who liked Death of a President, in the New York Observer, Rex Reed
identified the film as “Clever, thoughtful, and totally believable.
This is a film without a political agenda that everyone should see”.^[14] In the Toronto Star newspaper, Peter Howell said, “The film’s deeper intentions … elevate it into the company of such landmark works of historical argument as Peter Watkins‘s The War Game, Costa-Gavras‘s Z and, closer to home, Michel Brault‘s Les Ordres. Every thinking person should see Death of a President “.^[15] I”

We as Americans should always be concerned about our President’s safety–it should not only be a concern when the President is someone the press supports.

I will admit to being a political junkie.  I follow political campaigns and listen to what is said.  Sometimes I think there are some really good ideas put out, but I am more than a little cynical about ever seeing any campaign promise actually kept.  Well, here’s another one.

The Hill is reporting that pork barrel (earmark) spending has increased in 2009.  According to the article:

“Earmarks, which are inserted in appropriations bills by members in
order to fund specific projects, added up to $19.9 billion in 2009,
according to an analysis by the Taxpayers for Common Sense and Center
for Responsive Politics. Earmarks in 2008 spending bills were worth
$18.3 billion.”

According to the article:

“The member of Congress to win the most earmark money was Cochran, whose
earmarks added up to $1.22 billion. They included funds for repairs to
hurricane damage at an Army ammunition plant and for construction at
the University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy.

“The House
member with the most earmark money was Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-Iowa),
whose earmarks totaled $217 million. Many of Loebsack’s earmarks were
also requested by Iowa’s two senators, Tom Harkin (D) and Chuck
Grassley (R).”

Term limits, anyone?

Charles Krauthammer has a post at RealClearPolitics about the healthcare debate and the idea that better preventative medicine will cut costs.  Charles Krauthammer has a stong medical background and is very well informed on healthcare in America.  He points out that the original justification for totally redesigning American healthcare was the fact that healthcare costs were bankrupting our economy.  When the Congressional Budget Office released a report stating that President Obama’s healthcare plans would add $ 1.6 trillion dollars to the federal budget–not reduce costs, that claim became obsolete.  So they changed the rationale to the fact the better preventative care provided for in the bill would save us money.  Mr. Krauthammer points out:

“Reform proponents repeat this like a mantra. Because it seems so
intuitive, it has become conventional wisdom. But like most
conventional wisdom, it is wrong. Overall, preventive care increases medical costs.

“This inconvenient truth comes, once again, from the CBO. In an Aug.
7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf writes:
“Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally
find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend
to exceed the savings from averted illness.””

Again, the justification for this bill turns out to be false, as are most of the claims put out by supporters of  the bill.  Yahoo News is reporting that the end-of-life counseling program has been dropped from the bill by the Senate Finance Committee.  At the same time, the President is claiming that provision was never there.  This is not a bill to rush through Congress–this is a bill that needs to be carefully examined and changed drastically.

Just for the record, the three main causes of the increases in American medical expenses are:

1.  Medicare has negotiated agreements with hospitals to obtain services at a fraction of the hospital cost.  The hospital then charges private insurance more to make up the difference.  The healthcare bill will not change this–it will only make it worse, eventually causing hospitals to close or limit their services.

2.  Preventative medicine is practiced to the extreme as a defense against lawsuits.  One lawsuit can bankrupt a practice.

3.  The cost of medical malpractice insurance has gone totally out of control.  This could be addressed by tort reform, which is not in the current healthcare bill.

It’s time to scrap the current bill and deal with the actual problems!

Just in case you haven’t heard of them, Minnesotans for Global Warming has posted their theme song on YouTube.  Please follow the link for some great pictures and a fun song!  I can totally understand why someone who lives in northern Minnesota would support global warming!!!

Today’s Wall Street Journal ran an interesting article entitled, “Tax Withholding Is Bad For Democracy.”  The article was written by Charles Murray, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Murray points out that withholding taxes does not give Americans the real picture of how much money they actually pay to the government.

He points out that 1% of American families paid 40% of America’s personal taxes.  He further points out that:

“The families in the rest of the top 5% had family incomes of $160,000
to $410,000. They paid another 20% of total personal income taxes. Now
we’re up to three out of every five dollars in personal taxes paid by
just five out of every 100 American families.”

Because the money is withheld, we don’t really get a sense of how much money is involved.  Mr. Murray also has some suggestions for combining payroll and social security taxes into general taxes withheld, since that is how Congress spends them.  This would not add any additional expense and would end the idea that some naive people have that some of their taxes are actually being saved for their retirement.  This idea is far too sensible for Congress to be willing to consider it!

Yesterday Power Line reported on the President’s town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.  They linked to a report of Channel 9 WMUR in New Hampshire.  Evidently, supporters of President Obama’s healthcare plan were bussed in, waited on the bus, and were directed into the facility by a man with a bullhorn.  Opponents waited outside in the rain.  There is nothing wrong with bringing in people of like political ideas in buses; it’s just a good idea not to accuse your opponents of doing it when you in fact are using the buses! 

According to an article in today’s Los Angeles Times:

“It seems that, despite all the media attention lavished on e-mail appeals to
his supporters, not everyone pushing for President Obama’s embattled healthcare reform plan
these warm August days is an idealistic volunteer in it for the sake of helping
move the country forward and gaining medical attention for millions of uninsured
Americans.

“The website’s large-type headline announces: “Work to Pass Obama’s Healthcare
Plan and Get Paid to Do it! $10-15 hr!”

“It’s a web ad on Craigslist: “You can work for change.
Join motivated staff around the country working to make change happen.
You can make great friends and money along the way. Earn $400-$600 a week.””

Being an informed and involved citizen is a great idea.  But as a child of the 1960’s, paying people to protest just goes against my grain.  If you are not protesting because something is important to you and you have taken the time to become informed, please stay home.

On Tuesday, one of the blogs at the Detroit News reported that Senator Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), recently appointed to the Senate Energy Committee, stated that:

“Climate change is very real,” she confessed as she embraced cap and
trade’s massive tax increase on Michigan industry – at the same time
claiming, against all the evidence, that it would not lead to an
increase in manufacturing costs or energy prices. “Global warming
creates volatility. I feel it when I’m flying. The storms are more
volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes.”

We have had hurricanes and tornadoes for a long time.  Ms. Stabenow is a victim of the twenty-four hour news cycle.  Before the internet and cable tv, no one would have heard that remark other than people who read the Detroit News.  It is scary to me that this woman is on the energy committee.  Her knowledge of science and the scientific process seems rather limited.

The Hill posted an article today on the cost of the Cap and Trade Bill.  According to the article:

“The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) released a study Wednesday that found under a high-cost scenario the House global warming bill could reduce economic growth by 2.4 percent and cost 2 million jobs by 2030.”

Even if you believe in the concept of man affecting the earth’s climate, that is a very high price.  The biggest impact of the bill will be in the manufacturing segment of the economy.  Environmentalists have obviously objected to the numbers in the study.  Part of the difference in the cost is the environmentalists assumption that 95 new nuclear plants would be built by 2030.  NAM and ACCF assumed that only 10 to 25 nuclear plants would be built in the next two decades.   Currently, we are in a 30-year period in which very few new nuclear plants were built; since mid-2007, there have been 17 license applications to build 26 new nuclear reactors. 

Analyses by the EIA, Environmental Protection Agency and Congressional Budget Office can be found here, here and here.  

The current Justice Department seems to be more interested in politics than in doing its job.  Power Line posted an article yesterday with a link to a National Review article by Andrew McCarthy regarding the criminal investigations being launched against CIA interrogators.  Attorney General Eric Holder stated in April that “we’re going to follow the evidence wherever it takes us, follow the law wherever that takes us.”

If this Justice Department is so willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, why, then, did the Department of Justice drop charges against the Black Panthers in Philadelphia who were intimidating voters?

According to the article in National Review:

“For the Obama/Holder Justice Department, other considerations outweighed following the evidence wherever it led. The Panthers who turned out to be above the law include Jerry Jackson, a credentialed Democratic-party poll-watcher who brays on MySpace about “Killing Crakkkas.” Thanks to Holder’s decision, Jackson is right back in business, having obtained new poll-watcher credentials just days after DOJ dismissed the case.

“The CIA interrogators are having a rougher time with prosecutors than did the Black Panthers. They are retaining counsel and preparing for a lengthy investigation that likely will prove personally and professionally ruinous. The Los Angeles Times reported over the weekend that Holder is close to naming a prosecutor to probe whether the agency and its officers committed criminal misconduct.”

The Attorney General may score a few political points against the George Bush administration by ruining some lives in the intelligence community, but in doing so, he is making us less safe.  The result of this witch hunt will be a timidity in questioning terrorists that will quickly come back to bite us.  Meanwhile, people in America are allowed to intimidate voters to sway elections.  This is not the stuff of which democracy is made.

The information I am citing is from a website called ClassicalIdeals.com.  It is the website of Duke Professor John David Lewis, who studied to bill to find out what it would mean for him and his family.  The following comments are from his website.

A.  pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS

1.       This section amends the Social Security Act

2.      The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”

3.      The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.

4.      This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.

5.      This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.

6.      There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.

7.      The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.

B.  pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE

 

1.      This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2.      Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3.      The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.

 

C.  pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED

 

1.      The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.

2.      By setting a minimum 70%  actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal

This is all I am going to cover here.  Stay tuned for more on what the healthcare legislation being proposed actually says.  There is a lot of misinformation going around about this bill.  We could use some reform in health insurance, but this bill is not it.  There is a bi-partisan bill out there called “The Healthy Americans Act” that is cost neutral and will give us health insurance similar to the way car insurance is handled–portability, etc.  Some of the things in the proposed Democrat healthcare bill are scary and to reveal what is in the bill is not ‘scare tactics’, it is simply telling the truth.  The choice is not between reform and no reform, it is between a good bill and a damaging bill.  

According to a press release by SaratogaMuseum.org, the Juliett 484, a Russian submarine which at one point had been a museum open to the public in Providence, RI, is being taken to the scrap yard to be dismantled and recycled.  The Juliett 484 sank in April of 2007 during a heavy storm.

The press release also states:

“However, Frank Lennon, president of USS Saratoga Museum Foundation, former owners of the sub, has confirmed that the Foundation stands to obtain potentially significant financial benefits from the scrap proceeds.

“This will be a real financial boost to our ongoing efforts to bring the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga to life in Rhode Island as a family attraction, job training center, educational facility and Navy memorial,” said Lennon.”

As the wife of someone who was involved in the Anti-Submarine Warfare of the 1960’s, I look forward to the opening of the Saratoga Museum.     

Yesterday, The Hill reported on a letter sent to President Obama by 71 senators representing some of the leaders of both parties.  The effort to press Arab states to recommit to peace with Israel is led by Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Jim Risch (R-Idaho), and is being promoted and circulated by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. 

According to the article:

“A similar, bipartisan letter was sent by 226 House members last week to Saudi Arabia, calling on that country’s leaders to deepen their commitment to peace with Israel.”

I have been opposed to the way this administration has dealt with Israel, and I am delighted that Congress is adding balance to the situation. 

In an editorial published Sunday in the Dubai-based Khaleej Times, Dr, Ghassan Michel Rubeiz reminds us of the peace plan opposed by the Arab nations in 2002.  This Saudi-backed Arab peace plan asks Israel to retreat to 1967 borders, “attain a just solution” to the issue of Palestinian refugees and relinquish East Jerusalem to become capital of a Palestinian state. In return, Arab states promise to normalize relations with Israel.  

This is not a peace plan.  If the 1967 borders were so wonderful, why did the Arabs attack Israel in 1967?  Dr. Rubeiz objected to the letter which essentially said that Israel is working toward peace and the Arab states are not.  I guess my answer to that would be to ask to see the textbooks being currently used to teach Arab children.  What are the children being taught about Jews and the Jewish state?  I suspect that would answer any questions as to whether or not some Arab countries really want peace with Israel.

International diplomacy is very structured dance.  Certain moves mean certain things and certain actions draw preprogrammed responses.  What we actually see is not always what is actually happening, and when a diplomatic breakthrough is announced, chances are it was achieved long before the person announcing it arrived on the scene.  Sometimes what looks like a really good thing in one aspect has undercurrents that are not positive.  That is what happened with the visit to North Korea by President Clinton.

Today’s New York Post has an article by Gordon Cucullu, author of “Separated at Birth: How North Korea Became the Evil Twin.”   The article deals with the implications of the Clinton visit to North Korea.  Mr. Cucullu points out that:

“It didn’t take long to learn at least the first concession. President Obama has broken with past US policy to agree to bilateral talks with North Korea — a diplomatic plum that Kim Jong Il has sought for years, and a major coup in his attempt to nail down the succession of his 26-year-old son, Kim Jong Un.”

Mr. Cucullu also points out that National Security Adviser James Jones has said that no official messages were delivered and no promises made during President Clinton’s visit–it was a private visit.  Mr. Jones also claimed that the bilateral talks were also coordinated with our allies.  Mr. Cucullu points out:

“In fact, genuine coordination would require considerably more diplomacy than could be mounted in the days since Clinton’s return. So it’s most likely we simply informed those “allies” of a fait accompli — a slap in the face for our actual allies (South Korea, Japan), and cause for triumphal smiles for the Chinese and Russians.”

Why are we throwing our friends under the bus and doing things that make our enemies happy?  Have we reached a point in our nation’s history where we close our eyes to the fact that we have enemies? 

On Friday, the jobless rate dropped to 9.4 percent from 9.5 percent and the media celebrated the coming ‘good times’ thanks to the policies of Congress and the White House.  Wow!  Well, Investor’s Business Daily has a slightly different take.

An article in Fridays IBDeditorials points out:

“The plain fact is, a recovery was baked in the cake as 2009 began. The main reason was the Fed went pedal to the metal on money creation in December, slashing its benchmark fed funds rate to zero.

Since then, the monetary base — the most basic money supply controlled by the Fed — has grown at an average yearly rate of nearly 100%. That’s the biggest sustained rise since the Fed began in 1913.

More to the point, the stock market has had a fairly sustained rally since bottoming on March 9. Since then, share prices have added more than $3.6 trillion to shareholder wealth, a chunk of which will likely be spent in coming months.”

The politicians will, of course, take credit for the improved economy, but unfortunately the amount of debt created in the process of ‘stimulating’ the economy will eventually slow it down considerably.  The federal stimulus has amounted to approximately $12 per person.  Somehow, I don’t think that would be enough to reverse the direction of the economy.