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

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

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

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

Jalopnik also reported:

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

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

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

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

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

The article points out:

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

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

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

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

The article points out the coming tax increases:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article points out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New York Post concludes:

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

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

This is going to be fun to watch. 

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

2010 Census to Begin
BASIC ADVICE: 

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

The article points out:

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

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

The article concludes:

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

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

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

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

The article points out:

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

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

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

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

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

You get the picture.  The article quotes the report:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In writing about California, Michael Barone points out:

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

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

Michael Barone also points out:

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

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

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

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

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

Michael quotes directly from the email:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Morrissey points out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article points out:

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

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

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

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

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

The article points out:

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

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

The article concludes:

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

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

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

The article points out:

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. McCarthy further states:

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

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