Healthcare Reform Is About To Rise From The Dead

Big Goverment has posted an article by Matt Latimer about a group formed by doctors opposed to President Obama’s healthcare reform called Docs4PatientCare. 

The article describes the group:

“Founded by Dr. Hal Scherz, a prominent Atlanta physician, the group of doctors expressed concern that like so many other professional groups, the AMA’s leadership have been  thoroughly “Washingtonized” – caring more about the pleadings of other lobbyists on K Street, White House invitations and Capitol Hill committee appearances than the professions they are supposed to represent.  As doctors have taken a battering over several decades from insurance companies, HMOS, and government agencies, Scherz says the AMA was a bystander.” 

The group is concerned about what the current healthcare reform legislation will do to the practice of medicine in this country.  They have been meeting with Congressmen and their staff members to explain the impact of this legislation.  One such meeting is described:

“Another memorable incident cited by members of the group occurred when one of their members, Joyce Lovett MD, an African American female pediatrician, got the doctors into a meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus.  A debate opened up over the health care plan and soon the doctors were text-messaging their colleagues visiting other offices around the capitol for reinforcements.  As the room began filling up, the doctors, doing well in the back and forth of debate, seemed to be changing some minds.  At that point, a worried Black Caucus leader and diehard partisan, John Conyers, broke up the meeting, saying the doctors were more interested in embarrassing the first black president than in achieving real reform.   Unused to this sort of political attack, the astonished doctors told other caucus members  how they felt after taking time from their practices and patients to come all the way to Washington only to hear a member of Congress insinuate they were racists.  One caucus member privately dismissed Conyers’ “old ways of thinking,” suggesting that the CBC might be ready for fresh, and more innovative, leadership.”

Meanwhile, according to The Hill:

“Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), the top Republican on the Ways and Means committee, said that President Barack Obama and Democrats’ reported efforts to finish a healthcare bill before the coming summit could scuttle chances for bipartisanship.”

The ‘bipartisan’ meeting scheduled for next week is set up to be cover for the Democrats as they ram through healthcare reform against the wishes of the American people.  The Democrats are going in with the idea that the Republicans should simply sign on to their plan–they have no intention of listening to Republican ideas.  After the meeting, the Democrats will declare the Republicans ‘the party of no,’ and push through the legislation with 51 votes (through the reconcilliation process).  This is obscene, and every Democrat who votes for this healthcare bill should be voted out of office in November.  I am not sure whether or not the next Congress can undo this mess, but I sure hope they can.

Fort Jackson

This is a developing story, so I am sure there is more to come.  What I am posting here comes from Fox News on Thursday and CBN News on Thursday.

In December five arabic translators at Fort Jackson were arrested for trying to poison the food supply at Fort Jackson.  The men are Muslims. 

According to CBN:

“A source with intimate knowledge of the investigation, which is ongoing, told CBN News investigators suspect the “Fort Jackson Five” may have been in contact with the group of five Washington, D.C., area Muslims that traveled to Pakistan to wage jihad against U.S. troops in December. That group was arrested by Pakistani authorities, also just before Christmas.”

Fox News reports that the investigation began approximately two months ago. 

This story is still developing, so I really don’t have a lot to say except that I am reminded of the quote of General Casey, “Ft. Hood was a tragedy but the greater tragedy would be loosing our diversity.”  I wonder if he has changed his mind yet.  Diversity at the cost of American lives is definitely not worth it.

Avoiding Energy Independence

Yes, you did read that headline right.  Yesterday, The Hill reported on two Democrat Senators who are beginning to go after the natural gas industry.  In question is hydraulic fracturing, a drilling technique that injects fluids and sand underground to break-up rock formations so that natural gas can escape to the surface. “Fracking” has given producers access to rich gas reserves stuck in shale rock.

Some environmental and community groups fear that the process results in the contamination of drinking water. 

The article points out:

“Drilling companies insist fracking is safe. Energy In Depth, an industry-backed group formed specifically to fight federal regulations, said hydraulic fracturing is an “essential component of producing clean-burning energy in America today” in response to the inquiry.

“”If the responsible development of shale gas represents a potential game-changer for the United States, hydraulic fracturing represents a non-negotiable tool needed to leverage that potential into reality – and the jobs, revenue and opportunity that come with it,” the group said.”

I have no idea if this process is safe, but I am amazed at the roadblocks the Democrat party routinely puts in the way of America’s energy independence.  Until I hear a scientific argument about this process, I will be a bit skeptical.  It may be that the normal sources of American energy may have to be destroyed in order to bring in ‘green’ energy.  One of the reasons I am skeptical about this kind of attack on our own energy sources is that a lot of our political leaders are heavily invested in companies related to ‘green’ energy.  They have a personal and financial reason for wanting to move away from conventional sources of energy to ‘green’ energy.

Learning The Hard Way

Evidently the messages the voters sent in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have not yet gotten through.  During his Massachusetts campaign, Scott Brown frequently promised to be the 41st vote against the current heathcare reform.  He was elected.

Today at The Foundry, a website sponsored by The Heritage Foundation, Brian Darling posted a story about the current efforts by the Democrat party to force healthcare through Congress, to the President and into law.

There will be a bipartisan meeting on healthcare reform at the Blair House on February 25th.  The President called this meeting saying that it was time for bipartisan cooperation on the bill.  That is what he is saying; that is not what he is doing.

According to the article:

“According to The New York Times, the plan is to have the President submit reconciliation legislation to be posted on the internet this weekend. The legislation will be crafted in a manner so that it can be passed using special reconciliation procedures created solely to enact laws to reduce the deficit as part of the annual budget.  The next step is for the President to conduct his half day bipartisan summit at the Blair House on February 25th. With that faux-bipartisan stunt over with, the President will be free to pass legislation in a partisan manner that tosses aside the regular rules of business in the Senate.”

Any Democrat who signs on to this idea will probably be unemployed after the November election.  This is not bipartisanship at all; it is Chicago-style politics.  The voters have made it clear that they do not support the current healthcare reform bill.  I don’t understand why this administration is so totally deaf to the will of the American voters.

Further Comments On Evan Bayh’s Retirement

On Tuesday, Carol Platt Liebau at Townhall.com posted her perspective on the retirement of Evan Bayh.  There are a few aspects of this retirement.

Ms. Liebau points out that legislative agenda of the Obama Administration had put Senator Bayh in a very awkward position–either supporting the very unpopular agenda of President Obama (and losing his reputation as a moderate Democrat) or going against President Obama, angering the Democrat base and having to deal with any ‘Chicago style’ consequences.

Ms. Liebau points out:

“Sure, he’s getting out because of partisanship . . . from his own side.  And he’s doing it while he still has a viable reputation as a centrist, without either attracting the abuse that would come from the left if he resisted the Obama agenda in the Senate or jettisoning the reputation as a moderate he’s cultivated, if he were to knuckle under to the Obama/Reid/Pelosi crew.”

Leaving now is probably a very wise move in terms of his political future.

Meanwhile, yesterday’s New York Times reports that because no Democrat gathered enough signatures to run in a primary election in Indiana, party leaders will pick a candidate later this year.  This is exactly the kind of politics the American people are protesting–back room deals by party leaders.  Because Senator Bayh waited until the last minute to announce that he would not be running, it was almost impossible for anyone to get enough signatures to be on the ballot–thus a primary election was ruled out, allowing the party leaders to choose the candidate.

Watching The Fallout Of Faulty Data On Climate Change

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal posted a story about BP PLC, Conoco Phillips, and Caterpillar, Inc. announcing that they will not be renewing their membership in the  three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP).  This group was a coalition of businesses and environmentalists working in Washington to build support for the capping of greenhouse gas emissions. 

One of the reasons for not renewing their membership is the growing belief that no significant legislation will be passed in Washington because it is a very contentious election year.

The article also reports:

“Last week, the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Billy Tauzin, said he would step down as president of the industry’s main lobby in Washington, amid criticism from some in the industry over the alliance he made last year with the White House to support health-care legislation.”

USCAP was started initially to give some of the businesses that would be most affected by climate-change legislation some input into the legislation.  Many of USCAP’s ideas were incorporated into legislation, adopted by the House, that would require companies to reduce carbon emissions or buy pollution credits from firms that did.  Many of the companies in USCAP were unhappy with various provisions in the bill passed in the House, but felt that Cap and Trade legislation was inevitable.  The fact that Congress has not been able to move forward on the President’s agenda combined with growing skepticism about the science of man-made global warming has convinced many people that Cap and Trade will be at least temporarily shelved.

Cap and Trade legislation would have made a few powerful people in Washington very wealthy.  The buying and selling of carbon credits is an industry in its infancy that is heavily invested in by both Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi.  It is also noteworthy that the UN climate change organization was planning to use climate change as a way to force industrial countries to give large sums of money to third world countries (many of which have totally corrupt governments).  Climate chinge was going to be used as an excuse for setting up a world-wide welfare state paid for by nations that actually work and produce things.

 

Why The Texas Economy Is Booming

There are a lot of things going on in Texas right now.  The state is going through economic growth, and because the state has instituted medical malpractice rules, medical facilities are relocating there, and because of state tax policies, businesses are relocating to the state.  The state government has been extremely successful in keeping the state prosperous.

An article in today’s El Paso Times gives all of us a clue to the state of Texas’ financial success. 

According to the article:

“Texas Republican leaders Tuesday ramped up their fight against federal environmental efforts by filing suit to avoid facing limits on carbon dioxide emissions.”

Just for the record, the Tenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Texas seems to be one state that is willing to stand up to the federal government to protect the people of the state. 

The article further points out:

“Gov. Rick Perry, Attorney General Greg Abbott and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples started a legal battle against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“They said an “endangerment” finding that was released in December by the agency was based on faulty science and would hurt Texas’ economy.

“”They are using sweeping mandates, draconian punishments, to force a square peg of their vision into the round hole of reality,” Perry said. “In the process they are preparing to undo decades of progress while painting hardworking entrepreneurs as selfish (and) destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process.””

We need more states to stand up the federal government and reclaim their rights!

Michelle Obama’s Campaign Against Obesity

Today’s New York Daily News posted an article about Michelle Obama’s campaign against obesity in children.  Although I appreciate her interest in the problem, there are a few things that need to be added to the discussion.

First of all, Mrs. Obama has stated that when her daughters’ pediatrician pointed out that their Body Mass Index (BMI) was higher than it should be, she made a few changes in the family diet and solved the problem.  Seems logical enough.  Why then, can’t the average American citizen do the same thing (without government intervention)?   Why is the government planning on spending $10 billion dollars to do what parents ought to be doing?

I have a few suggestions.  Let’s put recess back in our schools.  In the era of political correctness and extreme self esteem policies, some schools have outlawed tag and dodge ball, games that force kids to move around.  Part of the program to fight obesity has been to wean children off video games.  That is not totally necessary.  There are aerobic video games (wii fit has a few and I am sure there are others).  If your child is playing video games, why not just change the games?  Competition in team sports has come under attack; let’s get it back.  Let’s tell our children to strive to be the fastest runner, the highest hurdler, etc.  These programs should already be in our schools.  Let’s take the snack machines out of the schools.  Let’s also become educated consumers who read labels before we buy groceries.

The article in the Daily News went in a different, but totally valid direction.  The article pointed out that part of the nutrition problems in this country are in poorer families who receive food stamps.  The food stamp allowance is not enough to put healthy food on the table.  Generally speaking, a well-balanced diet tends to be more expensive. 

The article concludes:

“This whole thing reminds me of a chapter in a book Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote a few years ago, in which he less than brilliantly proposed that we would reduce childhood obesity by putting even more restrictions on what families can buy with their food stamp benefits. Again, he made no mention of needing to increase how much families get – and suggested that children are fat because their parents choose the wrong foods.

“Enough sidestepping of the core issue. People need enough money to eat well. I’m tired of policymakers pretending to tackle social problems without giving up a penny to ordinary citizens.”

I understand the author’s point, but let’s do something about helping lower income families find a way to get off food stamps.  Our current war on poverty has obviously not worked, it’s time for a total revision of the poverty programs we have in place, including an examination of the bureaucracy that supports them.

 

 

But There Is Bipartisanship

Today’s Investor’s Business Daily posted a story on a recent article in the New York Times citing lack of bipartisanship as the cause of Congress’ current out-of-control spending.  This seems to be the current talking point of the Democrat Party.

According to the Investor’s Business Daily article:

“Along with the New York Times story, VP Joe Biden bemoans a “broken” Washington. Sen. Evan Byah, D-Ind., said Monday he won’t run for re-election in part due to “too much partisanship.” Several liberal pundits fret that America has become ungovernable. That includes the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein and the Times’ Tom Friedman, who can’t stop gushing about the “reasonably enlightened” Chinese autocracy.”

This is ridiculous on a number of levels.  First of all, the Democrats were not talking about bipartisanship until Scott Brown was elected.  Up until February 4th, they had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House (including an illegally appointed Senator from Massachusetts who legally should not have voted after January 19th).  Had the Democrats been united, they could have passed any legislation they wanted.  They totally froze the Republicans out of drafting the healthcare reform bill, bought votes, and bribed people, and they still couldn’t agree on a bill that they could pass.  They will probably attempt to get the bill through by using the reconcilliation process after seemingly allowing the Republicans a voice in the process.  So far the only bipartisanship has been against the healthcare bill–with Republicans and Democrats opposing it.  The same is true with the Cap and Trade legislation.  The House passed it, but there are not enough votes in the Senate to get it through–again the bipartisanship is against it–not for it.

Investor’s Business Daily concludes:

“The Tea Party movement is about the only political force that really sees deficits and spending as a top priority. The grass-roots revolt and general disgust by independents could sweep dozens of Republicans into Congress this November. Expect the NYT to decry the increased partisanship, but those new lawmakers will likely demand major changes to put the nation’s fiscal house in order.”

Politically it is going to be an interesting year.  That said, this will be the year the American voter decides whether or not America will survive financially.  It is up to the voters at this point.

There Are Two Sides To Every Story

This article is based on a story in the Arizona Republic that ran on January 21, 2010.

There is a bit of buzz in Massachusetts about the fact that our newest Senator, Scott Brown, has endorsed (and agreed to help) John McCain in his primary bid for the Republican Senate nomination in Arizona.  There are a few things that need to be looked at in this endorsement.

As the article states:

“Scott Brown has made the statement, “When few thought I had a chance of winning, John stood by me and supported my campaign. He was the first one,” Brown said in the message. “I want to thank him for his support for me and I want to encourage you to continue to support John.””

I am not a supporter of John McCain.  He is a war hero and deserves credit for that, but I do not appreciate him as a Republican.  Generally speaking, he has stabbed the Republican party in the back on numerous occasions, and has taken positions on illegal immigration that are totally unworkable.  However, I think Scott Brown is correct in supporting John McCain.  I voted for Scott Brown because I felt that he would make decisions on the basis of what he thought was right.  After watching him in the Massachusetts legislature for a few years, I didn’t always agree with him, but I respected him as a man of integrity.  To turn his back on John McCain after Senator McCain had helped him get elected would have been tacky.  I would also suspect that Senator Brown never thought that he would have to take a stand for Senator McCain in an Arizona primary election.  I guess the lesson to be learned here is that when you accept help from a powerful politician, you never quite know when and how you will be asked to reciprocate.

This Is Good News

Today’s Washington Times reports that President Obama has announced roughly $8 billion in federal loan guarantees to build the first U.S. nuclear power plant in three decades.  This is good news.  This plant will create jobs and generate much needed electricity.  The only issue with any nuclear plant is what to do with the waste after the power is generated.  The planned facility for storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been blocked by Senator Harry Reid.

This is an area where Republicans can truly back the President’s policies.  The only thing I would add is to mention that in France, which gets about two thirds of its electricity from nuclear power, the nuclear power plants are standardized throughout the country.  That means that a nuclear power specialist trained at one plant can work at any plant in the country.  It would be a really good thing to do something similar in America to help ease our dependence on foreign oil and grow our economy.

Reaching The Goal Of Energy Independence And Prosperity

Yesterday, The Hill posted an article on the cost of the offshore oil drilling ban.  A recently released report by the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and the Gas Technology Institute (GTI) states that U.S. oil-and-gas drilling bans will increase consumer energy costs and decrease cumulative U.S. GDP by $2.36 trillion over the next two decades.

The report was commissioned by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. 

The article points out:

“The Consumer Energy Alliance, which counts energy companies among its funders, highlighted the findings today. David Holt, the group’s president, said it’s easy to measure how energy development adds to jobs, stable energy prices and other benefits.”

It does seem rather odd that a country such as America, that is so rich in natural resources, would refuse to develop them.  Think of the jobs, the tax money going to the government to help reduce the deficit, and the increased national security that would result from energy independence.

Evan Bayh To Retire

Yahoo News is reporting today that Indiana Senator Evan Bayh will not seek another term as Senator.  He stated that he has lost his desire to remain in Congress because of the political gridlock and the extreme ideology that is prominent in the Senate.  Unfortunately for the Democrats, he made this decision only a few days before the filing deadline to run for his Senate seat.

Evan Bayh is a politically savvy Democrat.  He has a reputation as a moderate although he has supported some of the more extreme Democrat proposals in this Congress.  There is a strong possibility that Senator Bayh will be a Presidential candidate sometime in the future, and I believe getting out of Congress now is a smart move for that reason.  The approval ratings of the current Congress are at 20 per cent or less.  Even though the Democrats have had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate since November of last year, they have not been able to pass healthcare reform or cap and trade.  They are seen as totally ineffective by the American people, and it is to Senator Bayh’s advantage to distance himself from the current Congress. 

The Democrat Party is moving left as the American people are generally moving right.  It is quite possible that if the Democrats lose badly in the 2010 Congressional elections, they will be looking to rebuilding their party and its image.  Evan Bayh would be one of the people who logically could help in that process.  I also believe that if President Obama’s approval ratings are below 40 percent in 2011, Evan Bayh could challenge him in a Presidential primary.  That would be extremely unusual, but at that point, it could be very possible.

National Security Priorities

Power Line Blog reported today that:

“The National Security Agency (NSA) was recognized by Armstrong World Industries (AWI) on December 18 for being the nation’s leader in recycling ceiling tiles. NSA started recycling ceiling tiles in September 2008 and processed more than 400,000 ceiling tiles by November 2009.”

There is nothing wrong with recycling, but it seems to me that their focus might be better placed. 

The article also points out:

“As one of the largest employers in Maryland, NSA takes its responsibility to be a good neighbor and environmentally sound very seriously.”

I support anyone who works to decrease their energy use and to pollute less, but it just seems to me that the NSA is spending its time of things that may be of little significance in the overall scheme of things.  For example, how much pollution did the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings create?  Shouldn’t we be more interested in preventing another incident of that sort?

A Picture From Afghanistan

This is a picture taken from Michael Yon’s Blog.  Michael is a former green beret who reports independently from Afghanistan.

 

canadian-patient-american-nurse_1000.jpg

“A crew from the United States Air Force spent Saturday night and Sunday morning airlifting different groups of wounded soldiers from Kandahar to Camp Bastion to Bagram, back to Kandahar, then back to Bagram, and back to Kandahar. These patients were from Afghanistan, Australia, Canada, and the United States. Here, an Air Force nurse caresses the head of a wounded, unconscious Canadian soldier while whispering into his ear.”

Please remember to pray for Michael and for the American and NATO soldiers involved in the war in Afghanistan.

The Science Of Climate Change

The United Kingdom’s Daily Mail reported yesterday that Professor Phil Jones, who has been at the center of the climate change debate, has refused Freedom of Information requests because he may have actually lost the relevant papers.  In speaking to the BBC, Professor Jones admitted that there was a possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than it is now.  This is seen as an indication that climate change or global warming might not be man made.

The article points out:

“But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.”

There are two interesting facts about this story.  The first is that it was published in a British newspaper rather than an American newspaper.  The American media has been very hesitant to cover any story concerning the collapse of man-made climate statistics and data.  The other interesting fact about this story is contained in the following quote from the story:

“Even more strikingly, he (Professor Jones) also sounds much less ebullient about the basic theory, admitting that there is little difference between global warming rates in the Nineties and in two previous periods since 1860 and accepting that from 1995 to now there has been no statistically significant warming.”


It is always a good idea to study weather trends in order to uncover patterns and new information about the earth’s climate.  However, until we have at least a hundred years of reliable date, we really don’t have enough information to really understand the long-range trends of climate change.

Who Is Invited To The Meeting?

You can get a feel for the upcoming bipartisan ‘healthcare summit’ by the list of who is invited and who is not invited.  The Hill reported yesterday that House and Senate Budget Committee leaders are not included in the meeting. 

According to the article:

“Obama’s administration on Friday released a list of its invitees to the Feb. 25 summit, but topping the conspicuous absences were the top budget-writers in each chamber. For the Senate, the list excluded Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), the ranking Budget Committee member who in recent weeks has been publicly courting the Obama administration for a seat at the table in the talks, and committee chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.).”

If the leaders of the Budget Committees are not invited to this meeting, what is the purpose of the meeting? 

The people invited to the meeting were:

“The invitee list focuses on leadership members, plus the top members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and Finance Committee and the House’s Ways and Means Committee, Energy and Commerce Committee and Education and Labor Committee.”

I suspect that the Republicans feel that they have to attend this meeting as a show of good faith, but I would strongly suggest that they stay home.  President Obama has refused to scrap the current healthcare bill and start from scratch–despite the fact that public opinion is overwhelmingly against the bill.  The Democrats have also refused to rule out the possibility that after the meeting they will use the reconcilliation process (only needs 51 votes in the Senate) to push the current bill through.  There is a real question here as to whether or not this meeting is being held in good faith.  I really think the Republicans should stay home, release their own healthcare plan, and then ask if anyone really wants to talk.

The House Of Representatives And Healthcare

The Washington Examiner posted an article on Friday suggesting that the House of Representatives may be as much as one hundred votes short of being able to pass the President’s healthcare reform bill.  The article points out that many Congressman in the House are frustrated at being asked to vote on unpopular bills that then die in the Senate. 

The article points out:

“”‘Both ends of the Capitol — the House and the Senate — are starting to wonder if they’re on their own,’ the official continued. ‘You have a lot of frustration there. And the White House’s reaction to all of that seems to be, ‘Run against Congress’ — which, as you can imagine, doesn’t go over very well with House members. The White House reaction seems to be, ‘Position ourselves against Congress.'””

The entire House of Representatives has to run for reelection every two years.  Every House member is running in November.  In 2008, the Democrat party specifically ran candidates in conservative districts who appeared to be conservative.  Many of these candidates are now seeing their chances of reelection dwindle with each vote they are being asked to make on President Obama’s controversial proposals.  That is particularly frustrating when the bills they vote on do not get through the Senate.  The feeling is that they have put their reelection in jeopary for no reason. 

Conventional wisdom is that the Democrats will try to pass the healthcare bill through the reconcilliation process–which would require only 51 votes in the Senate.  There seems to be some real question as to whether or not the bill would pass in the House after that was done.  There is a way to pass healthcare reform without the government taking over the whole healthcare industry, but President Obama does not seem to be willing to consider that idea.

Creating Green Jobs

On Thursday, Investor’s Business Daily posted an article explaining how President Obama’s quest for green energy is creating jobs–in China! 

The article states:

“According to the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, nearly $2 billion in money from the American Recovery and Investment Act has been spent on wind power. The goal was to further energy independence while creating American jobs. It has done neither.

“Of the money spent, according to the report, nearly 80% has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines.”

This is not really what we were told to expect.  The article also points out that wind power is not particularly efficient.  To be specific, the article states–after decades of subsidies, wind provides only 1% of our electricity compared with 49% for coal, 22% for natural gas, 19% for nuclear power and 7% for hydroelectric. Wind turbines generally operate at only 20% efficiency vs. 85% for coal, gas and nuclear plants.

We have the natural resources to become energy independent.  Using our own natural resouces would create jobs here as well as strengthen our economy.  We need leadership with the foresight to realize that and act on it!

Hold On To Your Wallet!!!

As government spending rockets out of control, it has dawned on some people in Congress that the American people are going to have to pay for all this spending at some point.  The sources for this article are yesterday’s New York Post and yesterday’s Washington Examiner.

All of us remember President Obama’s campaign promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year (household income) or individuals making less than $200,000.  Well, that promise may have had an expiration date. 

According to the New York Post:

“The president is about to appoint a task force (not another one!) to study reining in the national deficit — and, he says, “what I want to do is to be completely agnostic in terms of solutions.”

Meaning, says Obama, that he “can’t set the whole thing up where a whole bunch of things are off the table.”

Including his once-sacred tax pledge.”

According to the Washington Examiner:

“To further clarify that he was talking about across-the-productive-board tax increases, Obama added this observation: “The real problem has to do with the fact that there is just a mismatch between the amount of money coming in and the amount of money going out. And that is going to require some big, tough choices that, so far, the political system has been unable to deal with.””

The bottom line on both these quotes is the same–“Hold on to your wallet!!”  The other inconvenient thought is, “Who is responsible for all the spending?”  Why not control spending instead of crippling the economy and the taxpayer with higher taxes?

I just need to make a note here that anytime politicians in Washington form a committee (which they are going to do to solve the budget problem), it’s because they don’t actually want to take responsibility for their actions.  For example, when military bases are closed, it’s always done by a committee, never by a political party or political leader.  As I said, hang on to your wallet!!!

How To Join A Union Without Really Trying

Hot Air reported yesterday on the forced unionization of a cottage industry in Michigan.  Michelle Berry is an entrepreneur who runs a day-care business in her home.  She thought she was a private business owner.  Well, think again.

According to the article:

“She thought that she owned her own business, but Berry’s been told she is now a government employee and union member. It’s not voluntary. Suddenly, Berry and 40,000 other Michigan private day-care providers have learned that union dues are being taken out of the child-care subsidies the state sends them. The “union” is a creation of AFSCME, the government workers union, and the United Auto Workers.”

To me, the obvious problem here is that Ms. Berry accepted the child-care subsidy from the state.  I wonder if she would have been enrolled in union membership had she refused this money.

The article points out the dangers of growing government interference in our lives and the growing power of unions within government.  The article details what the future will look like unless we begin to change how we govern.

Patrick Kennedy Will Not Seek Reelection

Today’s Providence Journal reports that Patrick Kennedy, the Democrat Senator from Rhode Island, will not seek reelection.  In the video message Senator Kennedy released, he alludes not only to his father’s example of public service but also to that of his aunt, Eunice Shriver. Her creation of the Special Olympics for disabled children gave her more of a private life than elective office allowed to her brothers, Ted, Robert and John F. Kennedy.”

I probably agree with very little of Senator Kennedy’s politics, and I am not sorry to see him step down from public office.  However, based on his recent personal history, I hope that he will seek help for himself in the areas where he has repeatedly had problems.  This is a man who has endured some very difficult moments in his life, and my sympathies go out to him.  Possibly the recent death of his father will cause him to reevaluate his life so far and find the things that will truly bring him peace.  I wish him the best in whatever he chooses to do in private life.

 

The Perfect Friday Before Valentine’s Day Story

Today, Science Daily posted a story on a research study showing that eating chocolate may lower your risk of stroke.  This is my kind of story!  Evidently, there were three studies involved in reaching this conclusion.

According to the article:

“The first study found that 44,489 people who ate one serving of chocolate per week were 22 percent less likely to have a stroke than people who ate no chocolate. The second study found that 1,169 people who ate 50 grams of chocolate once a week were 46 percent less likely to die following a stroke than people who did not eat chocolate.”

The article pointed out that chocolate contains flavonoids, an antioxidant, which may be the reason for the lower risk of stroke.  The article also pointed out that the results are not considered conclusive–it was suggested it might be possible that healthier people eat more chocolate.  Either way, I’m looking for my Hersey bar!

 

A Democrat Who Reads The Writing On The Wall

Today’s New York Post posted an article about Virginia Senator Jim Webb.  Senator Webb is up for reelection in 2012.  Senator Webb voted for Obamacare when it first came before the Senate–complete with cornhusker kickback and Louisiana purchase, but seems to have learned his lesson since then.  When Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts, Senator Webb immediately released a statement saying that all votes on healthcare reform should be suspended until Scott Brown was seated.  Politically, that was a very wise move.  It was also a move that reflected the wishes of the people that he is called to represent.  He has stood against the trials of terrorists in civilian courts and has stated that the war in Afghanistan needed a clear plan.  Senator Webb is obviously a man who has his own ideas, but is willing to be flexible in order to represent the people who elected him.  He is the kind of man who will make bi-partisanship possible.  We need more Democrats like him.

Lowering The Deficit

Tom Campbell has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago. His faculty advisor was Milton Friedman. Prior to that, Tom had obtained his B.A. and M.A. degrees in economics from the University of Chicago, on the same day in 1973. He then entered Harvard Law School where he served on the Harvard Law Review Board of Editors. He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law in 1976. After law school, Tom served as law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White. Thereafter, Tom returned to the University of Chicago for his economics doctorate, received in 1980. His free market economics training cemented a life-long commitment to limited government and greater individual liberty. He has posted an article at BigGovernment.com detailing his plan to lower the deficit.

These are the highlights of Dr. Campbell’s plan:

  • Cap non-defense discretionary spending to fiscal year 2009 levels for a savings of $101 billion. The White House Budget caps this item at fiscal year 2010 levels of $690 billion, but this category already grew from $589 billion in fiscal year 2009–a 30 percent increase.  They let it rise by 30 percent before deciding to cap it. We should cap it at once. 
  • There is no evidence that the stimulus bill has produced the 2 million new jobs the President claims, over what the private sector would have produced if the same funds had been allowed to stay with the private sector.  Yet the White House proposes increasing the amount spent from $202 billion in [delete FY] fiscal year 2009 to $353 billion in fiscal year 2010 and $232 billion in fiscal year 2011.  I propose cutting this increase in spending over fiscal year 2009 in half for a savings of $292 billion.
  • Use the TARP money the banks are returning to pay down the debt for a savings of $200 billion.  The money was approved for a specific purpose: to buy the bad mortgages from banks. Since the banks are now returning the money, it should be used to reduce our federal borrowing. It’s not “free money,” available for other uses, as the White House has proposed.
  • Medicaid and SCHIP are 7 percent of the federal budget and spending in this category rose nearly 30 percent from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010. We need to approach Medicaid and SCHIP the way we did welfare in 1996: don’t trim at the edges but announce that there will be a cap and stick with it.  Doing so would save $45 billion.

The above suggestions save $750 billion in fiscal year 2010 alone, more than half of the projected deficit.  Is anyone in Washington listening?