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

According to the article:

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

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

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

The article points out:

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

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

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

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

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

The article points out:

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

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

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

The article quotes Captain Sully:

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

Thank you, sir, for being an inspiration. 

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

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

According the the CNS News article:

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

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

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

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

The Wall Street Journal concludes:

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

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

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

Just a note about Dubai:

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

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

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

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

According to the MSNBC article:

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

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

The New York Post story points out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the article:

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

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

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

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

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

The article concludes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the article:

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

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

The article points out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article points out:

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

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