Today’s Washington Examiner posted a story stating that Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia is reporting a budget surplus for his state rather than the predicted deficit. 

According to the article:

“McDonnell estimated that the surplus for the fiscal year that ended June 30 will be at least $220 million after miscellaneous interest payments are made.  The final figure will be made official in August after year-end adjustments.”

In January it was reported that the Commonwealth of Virginia was facing a $1.8 billion budget deficit for the fiscal year, which ended June 30th.  The Commonwealth ended the year with a $220 million surplus. 

Please follow the link above to read the article, which details the steps taken to turn a deficit into a surplus.  The article makes clear that there are still financial challenges ahead for Virginia, but this was a major step forward.  I wonder if Governor McDonnell is willing to help the Obama Administration with its budget problems.

CNS News is reporting today that the healthcare reform bill recently passed by Congress does use taxpayer money to fund abortions.  If you remember, we taxpayers were assured that that was not the case and an executive order was signed that was supposed to prevent the use of taxpayer money to fund abortions.  Well, I guess that was another healthcare lie.

The article explains:

“(House Republical Leader) Boehner and other Republicans point to reports that the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.”

Regardless of how you feel about abortion, the point is that the American people were lied to by the people in Washington, D. C., that we sent there to represent us.  Who do they represent? 

The article concludes:

“Even before it’s fully implemented, the Democrats’ health care plan “is already being exposed as a high-taxing, poorly thought-out, and taxpayer-funding-of-abortion monstrosity,” (Tom) McClusky (senior vice president of the Family Research Council’s political action arm) said.
 
“Republican leader Boehner says House Republicans would codify the Hyde amendment, thus prohibiting all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion.  Under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage would not receive federal funds.”

If it took lies to pass this bill (about its cost, whether people would be able to keep their coverage, the impact on senior citizens, and abortion coverage), it needs to be repealed and replaced with something the Obama Administration and Congress can tell the truth about (maybe Congress and the Obama Administration need to be replaced with people who can tell the truth!).

Dr. Walter Williams spoke at the college graduation of one of my daughters many years ago.  He showed amazing insight then, and he shows amazing insight now.  Dr. Williams is on the faculty of George Mason University as John. M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics.

In an article posted at Townhall.com, Dr. Williams talks about the myth that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s policies ended the depression. 

Dr. Williams points out:

“FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, wrote in his diary: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. … We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … and an enormous debt to boot!””

We have only been spending wildly for a year and a half, but does that quote sound like it applies today? 

Dr. Williams points out:

“The Great Depression did not end until after WWII. Why it lasted so long went unanswered until Harold L. Cole, professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania, and Lee E. Ohanian, professor of economics at UCLA, published their research project “How Government Prolonged the Depression” in the Journal of Political Economy (August 2004). Professor Cole explained, “The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes. Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.” Professors Cole and Ohanian argue that FDR’s economic policies added at least seven years to the depression.”

Maybe it’s time to evaluate whether the Obama Administration’s fiscal policies have helped us get out of the recession or have prolonged the recession.  Dr. Williams points out in his article that the only way the government can spend money is to tax it or borrow it.  Excessive taxing or excessive borrowing will not lead us out of the current mess.  We desperately need to cut spending enough so that we can cut taxes.  I suggest that we check the voting records of the people currently in Congress before we vote in November.  Big spenders and politicians promoting pork projects need to be voted out of office.  We need informed, involved voters in November if we are to rescue our children and grandchildren from the incredibile debt the Obama Administration is creating.

We are entering the “silly season.”  The silly season is not my name for it, but I can’t rememeber which political analyst called June through November of an election year the “silly season.”  Anyway, we are there.

Yesterday, Jim Geraghty at the Campaign Spot at National Review Online gave voters a preview of what to expect during the silly season.  Public Policy Polling released a poll showing Democrat Gov. Martin O’Malley leading Republican Robert Ehrlich by 3 percentage points. The poll’s sample splits 60 percent Democrat, 28 percent Republican, 12 percent independents.

Anytime you see the results of a poll, you need to look at who took the poll and what their polling sample was.  The most reliable polls are the ones of registered voters only, the most unreliable polls are the ones taken during the day when most people are out working.  In this case, Mr. Geraghty points out that in the 2008 elections, CNN’s exit poll showed a Maryland electorate that consisted of 51 percent self-identified Democrats, 28 percent Republicans, and 21 percent of independents.  The sample used in the poll that shows Governor O’Malley leading Robert Ehrlich assumes that 16 percent of the independents who voted in 2008 have become Democrats.  That is contrary to every other poll currently being reported.  Indications are that independents are moving away from the Democrat party.

What this shows is that you can make a poll say anything you want it to by controlling the people you poll.  By adding more Democrats to the polling sample, the pollsters were able to show that Governor O’Malley was leading.  I don’t know if polls make an impact on voters, but as voters, all of us need to be aware that polls can be manipulated.

Yesterday’s Washington Examiner posted an Associated Press article on the death of George Steinbrenner, the colorful owner of the New York Yankees.  There were two ironies that stood out for me in the article:

• Mr. Steinbrenner died of a heart attack at age 80.  He once stated, “I don’t have heart attacks, I give them.”
• Because of the compromises made in the George Bush changes to inheritence tax law, the Steinbrenner family may actually be able to retain ownership of the New York Yankees.  That will depend on how Mr. Steinbrenner’s estate was set up, but in past years, family businesses have had to be sold to pay the estate taxes required by the government.  In evaluating estate taxes, taxpayers need to remember that all the money in an estate has already been taxed.  I guess estate taxes could also be looked at as taxation without representation.

Please follow the link to the Washington Examiner article.  It highlights an interesting and successful career as the owner of the New York Yankees.  The Yankees are the team everyone loves to hate (I live in Massachusetts, so I may be a bit biased on that), but they won.  His fueds with Yogi Berra and Billy Martin are legendary.  I hope someone in Hollywood will put together an honest biography of this man–I think it would be fascinating.

Today’s Waltham, Massachusetts, Daily News Tribune posted a story about Marty Lamb, who is running in the Republican Primary for Senate in the 3rd Congressional District in Massachusetts.   Mr. Lamb was discussing his “lamb chop plan” – a 10-point strategy for cutting federal spending and the taxpayer burden.

The plan is basic common sense.  According to the article, the plan includes:

“End corporate bailouts; pay off the national debt; limit expense increases to the inflation rate; stop creating new entitlement programs like the recent national health care plan; reform the earmark system; and re-establish a committee to propose cuts and scrutinize programs for worthiness.”

Mr. Lamb proposed an alternative to extending unemployment benefits–a payroll tax cut for a set period for employers and employees.  This would encourage hiring and stimulate the economy by giving people more money to spend. 

Please follow the link above to check out Marty Lamb’s stands on various other issues.  Common sense is a rare quality in Washington today, and I believe that quality is what Marty Lamb brings to the discussion.

Mr. Lamb summed up his campaign for the article:

“Lamb said he is taking the primary seriously, but “I’m still running against Jim McGovern.””

I am planning to vote for Marty Lamb in November.

Yesterday The Hill reported that “the White House and congressional Democrats, with the backing of the AARP, will soon put forth a plan to automatically enroll new private-sector employees in investment retirement accounts (IRAs).”

The concept is that this move would encourage savings.  The program would have tax benefits, but it is unclear whether they would be typical IRA tax-deferred accounts or Roth-type accounts where the income placed in the accounts is taxed, but there is no withdrawal tax.

I guess my suspicious nature has come into play here.  This is the Administration that has taken away the Health Savings Accounts, which were tax-free and saved families money on healthcare.  Since the AARP betrayed its members in the healthcare debate, I tend to be suspicious of anything political they may be involved in.  I am also aware of what happened in Argentina two years ago.

According to the Wall Street Journal on October 23, 2010:

“Argentine President Cristina Kirchner announced this week that her government intends to nationalize the country’s private pension system. If Congress approves this property grab, $30 billion in individually held retirement accounts — think 401(k)s — managed by private pension funds will become government property.”

We need to be aware that this could happen here.  We also need to be aware that after Argentina seized the 401k’s, emerging market investors considered Argentina as one of the worst places on the planet to put your money.

At some point, it will become obvious that the Laffer Curve is the answer to our economic woes.  I just hope we figure that out before our country is bankrupt.

CNS News posted a story today stating that the Obama’s Administration has issued a revised moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. 

According to the article:

“Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he decided to put in place a new moratorium because of “evidence that grows every day of the industry’s inability in the deep water to contain a catastrophic blowout, respond to an oil spill and to operate safely.”
 
“The new moratorium was panned by industry groups and generally supported by environmentalists.”

Earlier this month, rightwinggranny reported that oil rigs are beginning to leave the Gulf.  Even if this moratorium is struck down, as was the last one, oil companies are going to be very reluctant to put rigs in the Gulf with moratoriums being a constant threat.  This in itself will probably greatly diminish the amount of oil we receive from the Gulf.

Yesterday I saw an ethanol ad on television explaining that using ethanol does not give money to countries that support terrorism.  Well, neither does drilling in the Gulf, and drilling in the Gulf does not have to be subsidized by the government to make it even remotely practical.

According to the article:

“Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat, said in testimony to the presidential oil spill panel that she was “alarmed” at the Interior Department’s statement that its decision is supported “by an extensive record of existing and new information indicating that allowing new deep-water drilling to commence would pose a threat of serious, irreparable or immediate harm or damage to the marine, coastal and human environment.” Landrieu said that statement “contradicts testimony given by drilling experts and ignores the history of oil and gas operations in the Gulf.””

I believe that Senator Landrieu tries to represent the interests of the people in her state.  I suspect she is beginning to wonder about some of the policies of the Obama Administration.

This story is based on two articles, the first from The Daily Beast on July 7, 2010, the other from The Hill today.

President Obama has been President for about a year and a half now.  A lot of the promises and pledges he made in the campaign and in the past year have been broken, and the economy has not yet turned a corner–unemployment is still around 10 per cent.  It is too early to speculate on what the next two years will bring, but there are a few scenarios. 

Even leading Democrats are saying that the Republicans will probably win the House of Representatives back in November.  There is not a lot a chatter about what may happen in the Senate.  The President’s approval rating is lower than his disapproval rating.  That is not good.  Remember, however, that we are dealing with a Chicago politician.  There is a scenario under which President Obama could easily be reelected in 2012, and all of us need to be aware of this in order to prevent his reelection. 

If Congress turns over to the Republicans in November, they will not take office until January.  If Congress does not extend the Bush tax cuts and if Congress uses its lame duck session to pass new taxes, cap and trade, etc., the economy will nose dive in January.  At this point, since the Republicans are in charge of Congress, it will be easy to blame them for the downturn (unless the voters are paying attention).  This would pave the way for an Obama reelection.

However, life is never that simple.  The Hill reported today that Evan Bayh has stated that he agrees with House Minority Whip Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) statements that tax increases would hurt whatever economic recovery we are currently seeing.  There are a few Democrats asking party leaders to extend the Bush tax cuts in order to help the economy recover.  Evan Bayh has already announced his retirement from the Senate.  He is in a position to challenge President Obama from the right in a Democrat primary in 2012.

The Daily Beast reported on the Aspen Ideas Festival, where many people who supported President Obama in his bid for President expressed second thoughts.  One of the quotes from that article:

“”The real problem we have,” Mort Zuckerman said, “are some of the worst economic policies in place today that, in my judgment, go directly against the long-term interests of this country.””

Another quote:

“The curse of longterm unemployment is that if you pay people to do nothing, they’ll find themselves doing nothing for very long periods of time,” Ferguson said. “Long-term unemployment is at an all-time high in the United States, and it is a direct consequence of a misconceived public policy.”

These are two examples of the disillusionment with President Obama now that he has been in office for a year and a half.  Keep in mind that many of the people at this Festival had supported Bill and Hillary Clinton in the past.

The statement made by Evan Bayh and the statements from the Aspen Ideas Festival are interesting in that they may portent a Democrat presidential primary in 2012.  I suspect someone will challenge President Obama from the left, but I also suspect either Evan Bayh or Hillary Clinton will challenge him from the right.

Power Line reported in April that U.N. Elects Iran to Commission on Women’s Rights.   Iran was elected to the Commission on Women’s Rights after it had given up its bid to obtain a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council.

From the news report in April:

“Buried 2,000 words deep in a U.N. press release distributed Wednesday on the filling of “vacancies in subsidiary bodies,” was the stark announcement: Iran, along with representatives from 10 other nations, was “elected by acclamation,” meaning that no open vote was requested or required by any member states — including the United States.”

I find it amazing that no western country objected to this ‘election’ or demanded an open vote. 

This month in Iran, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani has been sentenced to stoning after being charged with adultery.   The head of Human Rights Headquarters of Iran’s Judiciary, Mohammad Javad Larijani slammed Western protests against stoning emphasizing that stoning exists in Iran’s constitution and it is “legal.”  Mrs. Mohammadi Ashtiani has already received 99 lashes in the course of her imprisonment.  There are some questions as to whether her sentence for adultery was just.

Meanwhile, the United States dues to the United Nations are assessed at $598,292,101 for last year.  The United Nations may have started with noble goals and intentions, but that is not what it currently represents.  I would like to see the United Nations moved out of New York City (and all its back parking tickets paid), and I would like to see the United States resign from the United Nations.  We need to form a world organization that supports freedom and democracy for all people regardless of sex, race, or religion.  The United Nations is not that organization.

Politico today is reporting on some amazing statements by David Axelrod.   Mr. Axelrod was on Fox News Sunday.  When questioned about the fact that oil rigs are beginning to leave the Gulf of Mexico because of the drilling moratorium, Mr. Axelrod stated:

“These are rented rigs, and they go from place to place.  It’s not an optimal situation, but obviously we’re dealing with the greatest environmental catastrophe of all time. … It’s been a tremendous tragedy for that region. We don’t want a repeat of it because we’re imprudent.”  

Mr. Axelrod further stated that the job losses in the Gulf were not due to the moratorium–they were due to the disruptions in fishing, tourism, etc.   While he is partially correct, a very large percentage of the jobs lost are because of the moratorium.  The industries that support drilling as well as the drilling make up a large portion of the economy along the Gulf coast. 

We need to remember that slightly under 32 percent of the oil used in the United States comes from the Gulf of Mexico.  We have voluntarily cut off one third of our oil supply.  I am not sure when we will begin to feel this at the gas pump, but I can guarantee that it will be coming.  When you remember that President Obama’s ideal price for gasoline in this country is $7 a gallon (this would be created by his Cap and Trade program), you wonder exactly what the moratorium is about.  I suspect we will see gasoline prices climb sharply just after the November election, but I am sure that will be explained as pure coincidence.

Until we have a cheap, reliable, alternative source of energy, we need to continue drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  We cannot expect to balance the budget and subsidize every uneconomical green energy source that comes along.  Spain has proved that–they recently abandoned their green energy program because it was expensive and was destroying jobs.  We need to learn from their experience.

Reuters is reporting today that the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are getting younger and younger.  If you remember, during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980’s, Iran used child soldiers.  Keep in mind that Iran is fighting us in Afghanistan.  They are supplying weapons, training, and probably soldiers.

According to a Brookings.edu account of Iran’s behavior during the Iran-Iraq War::

“Thousands of children were pulled from schools, indoctrinated in the glory of martyrdom, and sent to the front lines only lightly armed with one or two grenades or a gun with one magazine of ammunition. Wearing keys around their necks (to signify their pending entrance into heaven), they were sent forward in the first waves of attacks to help clear paths through minefields with their bodies and overwhelm Iraqi defenses. Iran’s spiritual leader at the time, Ayatollah Khomeini, delighted in the children’s sacrifice and extolled that they were helping Iran to achieve “a situation which we cannot describe in any way except to say that it is a divine country.””

 

This, unfortunately, is the mentality we are up against.  The Reuters article recounts what is happening in Afghanistan:

“Over the last eight to nine years there has been a dynamic change in the age of fighters. Most fighters now are between 14 and 18 years-old,” said Lieutenant Colonel Guy Jones, commander of 2-508th Parachute Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, based in Arghandab.

“In 2002, fighters were 22 to 30-years-old and commanders were between 32 and 40,” said Jones who is on his fourth tour in Afghanistan.

Jones pulls out a piece of paper from his pocket to illustrate his point. On the paper are the names of recently captured detainees with their photographs beside them. Their ages range from 14 to 20.

One wounded boy caught firing a weapon at U.S. forces is now recovering in hospital at the main foreign air base in Kandahar. He is only 13, said Jones.”

I don’t know how you give children their childhood back after they have been forced (or brainwashed) into become soldiers while they are young teenagers.  I pray that we can do something in Afghanistan to stop that sort of child abuse.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a video yesterday showing the head of the New Black Panthers, Malik Shabazz, recounting the episode at the Philadelphia polling place in 2008 from the Panthers’ perspective.  It is interesting to see ‘the other side’ of the story.  It is also very obvious that this man and his organization have very little respect for the law.  If we are going to have a civilized society, respect for the law has to be part of that picture.  The arrest and prosecution of the men who intimidated voters in 2008 would have been a step in the right direction.  To make light of what they did only encourages more disrespect for the law.

If you have not followed this story, ‘google’ “J. Christian Adams” for further updates.

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal posted an article by John Fund about what is likely to happen in Congress if the Democrats lose their majority in the House of Representatives in November.  It’s not a pretty picture.

Mr. Fund points out that the Democrats will leave Washington a week earlier than usual (July 30) and will not return until September.  This gives them little time to pass any meaningful legislation before they leave.  While some of us think that is a good thing, there are rumblings that a lame-duck session after the election could be used to pass a number of laws very unpopular with the American people. 

Some of the things being looked at for the session after the election–card check, cap and trade, dramatic tax increases (if the Bush tax cuts are not extended, there will be a dramatic tax increase on January 1, 2011, without Congress doing anything!), and lots of big spending projects.

Mr. Fund reports that one Senate aid told him that many of the big ‘pork spenders’ are leaving Congress this year, and see a lame-duck session as a ‘last hurrah’ for pork spending.  Generally the Congressional plan is to disregard the wishes of the American people they are supposed to represent and go after any pet projects they might have.

Mr. Fund concludes:

“Many Democrats insist there will be no dramatic lame-duck agenda. But a few months ago they also insisted the extraordinary maneuvers used to pass health care wouldn’t be used. Desperate times may be seen as calling for desperate measures, and this November the election results may well make Democrats desperate.”

Please remember that at this moment there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat.  As long as the Democrats in Congress are represented by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the total disregard of the wishes of the American people will continue.

Yesterday’s New Haven Register reported that Pratt & Whitney will not be allowed to close its Cheshire plant and an East Hartford division, which would result in Connecticut losing 1,000 jobs.   A federal appeals court decided that the company could not close the plants because it had not made every reasonable effort to keep the jobs here. 

According to the article:

“The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a previous decision by a federal judge that said the company violated its contract with the union by not making all reasonable attempts to spare the proposed job cuts.

“However, Parent said the injunction on the cuts lasts only through the duration of the current contract between Pratt and the union, which expires Dec. 5.

“Union leaders will fight to keep “job security language” that is included in their current three-year pact in the next one when they begin contract negotiations with Pratt in October, he said.”

This is an example of a union preventing a company from doing what is necessary for the survival of the company.  If I were Pratt & Whitney, I would keep the plant open until December 5 if possible (I suspect the unions will strike if the ‘job security language’ is not included in their next contract), and then move as far away from Connecticut as possible.  Unions have a place in American business, but the people who run them have become worse than corporate fat cats.  Look at the salaries of union leaders, look at how the union spends its dues politically with no input from its members, and look at the underfunding of union pension funds.  If the unions would work with corporations instead of against them, we would all be better off.

Today’s UK Telegraph reports that the National Health Service is undergoing its biggest change since it began sixty years ago. 

According to the article:

“The plan, contained in a white paper to be published next week, is designed to place key decisions about how patients are cared for in the hands of doctors who know them. Tens of thousands of administrative jobs in the health service will be lost as a result.

“At present, funds are given by the Government to primary care trusts, which pay for patients from their area to be treated in hospital.

“Under these plans, GPs — who are currently not responsible for paying for hospital referrals — would receive the money instead and pay the hospitals directly.

“The change will be compulsory.”

The change puts between £60-£80 billion back in the hands of the family GP’s who actually know the patients. 

The article further states:

“Responsibility will be handed to GPs working in local groups, who will commission services or provide them by working in rotas through co-ops. Mr Lansley believes that if GPs are responsible for their own budgets and have to commission out-of-hours care, most will decide to go back to offering weekend and evening cover themselves or in local groups.

“The loss of jobs, which The Daily Telegraph has been told will run into tens of thousands, is also likely to lead to outcry from public sector trade unions. Ministers are already braced for industrial action over plans for severe cuts in the Whitehall workforce.”

Isn’t it interesting that as the United Kingdom realizes how much money is wasted in the ‘civil service’ level of its healthcare, that we in America are about to establish that ‘civil service’ level in our healthcare.

Another reason for REPEAL AND REPLACE!!!!

This article is based on two sources–an article at Boston.com yesterday and an Associated Press article at CBS News yesterday.  Both stories report that Judge Joseph L. Tauro, a federal district court judge in Boston, ruled yesterday that “the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.”

I’m not interested in going into whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal, but I am amazed by how this whole thing is unfolding.  Same-sex marriage was never voted on by the people of Massachusetts.  The proper number of signatures were collected to put the issue on the ballot, but through political gamesmanship, it was never put on the ballot and voted on.  Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health in 2004.  It was never voted on by the people of the state or legislated by elected officials.  The Defense of Marriage Act was passed (by elected officials) in 1996, specifically stating that states would not be obligated to recognized same-sex marriages performed in other states.  Now a judge is ready to throw out a law passed by elected officials and support a law that was enacted by unelected judges.  

Fast forward to the Arizona Immigration Law.  The Arizona Immigration Law was legally passed by the Arizone legislature and signed by the governor of Arizona.  The Arizona law is in harmony with federal laws regarding illegal immitration.  The Obama Administration is suing the state of Arizona, claiming that the law is unconstitutional.  If the left is willing to override a legally passed federal law with a state law that was never voted on, why are they not willing to support a state law that is in harmony with federal law? 

One of the building blocks to a free country is an organized system of laws.  I really don’t think the founding fathers ever envisioned laws that were passed by judges having more authority than laws legally passed by elected officials.

Today’s Washington Post is reporting that the United States will swap ten of the recently apprehended Russian spies for four Americans that the Russians claim are spies.

Eric Holder and Robert Mueller praised the arrests of the Russian spies as the result of years of investigations and counterintelligence work.  Stephen Sestanovich, a former National Security Council official who is an expert on Russia, questioned the wisdom of the quick release of the spies.  The United States did not really have very much time to learn anything from any of them.

I really wonder about the speed and the balance of this transaction.  Why did the Russians turn over four alleged spies when we surrendered ten?  Why was this done so quickly?  What was the risk to America or to the Russians of keeping these spies in prison in America for a year or two?  What message are we sending to the world about how we deal with spies?  Is catch and release a good way to deal with spies?

I am sure more of this story will come out eventually.  There has to be more, and I am sure some journalist will uncover it.  It might be very interesting.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.  It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.  The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of the own conscience.”

                                      C. S. Lewis

YouCut is the website of the Republican whip, Eric Cantor.  It gives anyone the opportunity to vote on which budget cuts they would like to see.  It’s a great site.

From the YouCut site:

“Prohibit Stimulus Funding for Promotional Signage And Recoup Previously Spent Funds
Saves: Tens of millions
Across the country, signs have been erected to alert citizens that certain projects are being funded by last year’s stimulus bill. These signs, often along highways, provide no meaningful information, create no jobs, and have been criticized as taxpayer funded advertisements for the stimulus bill. Unfortunately, no accurate information exists on the total number of signs erected and their cost to taxpayers. Press reports from across the country indicate, however, that the costs could well be in the millions of dollars. This proposal would prohibit funding for any additional signs, would require agencies to report on the amount already spent on signs, and would recapture those funds for taxpayers by reducing the agencies’ administrative expenses by an amount equal to that spent on signs.”

I never thought of that.  What a great idea!

Stars and Stripes is reporting today that General David Petraeus will be clarifying the current Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan rather than issuing new rules. 

The article reports:

“Gen. David Petraeus, who became commander of all forces in Afghanistan on Sunday, is expected to issue a new tactical directive in a matter of days, according to Col. Rich Gross, the chief legal adviser to International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

“Gross said confusion in the field over the existing tactical directive, which seeks to lessen civilian casualties by specifying when force can be used against Taliban insurgents, has resulted in some soldiers feeling as if they are fighting a war with their hands tied.”

I realize that there are two sides to every story, but we do need to remember that we are fighting an enemy that has their own Rules of Engagement.  We are fighting an enemy that does not hesitate to use civilians as shields or Mosques as military headquarters and then screams to high heaven if civilians are hurt or Mosques fired upon.  We can be either smart about this or stupid.  If we choose not to be smart, I suggest we bring our soldiers home. 

When Harry Truman dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, a lot of people were killed.  However, a lot of Japanese lives were saved and a lot of American lives were saved because the war ended abruptly.  I am not suggesting by any stretch of the imagination that we use nuclear weapons on Afghanistan, but I am suggesting we subdue the country forcefully (as we did in Japan) and work from there.

I hope the Rules of Engagement will reflect a desire to win this war and bring our troops home.

Investors.com reported yesterday on the Obama Administration’s delay in releasing the Annual Report of the Social Security Board of Trustees.  The report is routinely released between mid-April and mid-May.  The report, produced by the Office of the Actuary of the Social Security Administration, includes detailed information about Social Security and its financing over the next seventy-five years. 

According to the article:

“The Congressional Budget Office reported last week in its Long Term Budget Outlook that Social Security was already running a deficit this year.  According to last year’s Social Security Trustees Report, that was not supposed to happen until 2015, with the trust fund to run out completely by 2037.

“With the disastrous Obama economy, the great Social Security surplus that started in the Reagan administration is gone completely.” 

There is more to the report than Social Security, however.  The report also includes information about Medicare and its financing over the next seventy-five years.  According to the article:

“What the administration is trying to hide are sweeping draconian cuts to Medicare resulting from the ObamaCare legislation, which the annual report will document.”

The article also reports:

“The CBO confessed to $500 billion in Medicare cuts in the first 10 years of Obama-Care alone. Based on those calculations, the minority staff of the Senate Budget Committee estimated the Medicare cuts as $800 billion in the first 10 years of implementation and $2.9 trillion over the first 20 years of ObamaCare.  Truthful annual trustees reports would further document these cuts.”

We need to elect people in November who will REPEAL AND REPLACE President Obama’s healthcare reform before it ruins American healthcare.

You don’t have to look too far into the articles about the recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick to run Medicare and Medicaid to find concerns about rationed medical care.  The sources of this article are today’s Washington Examiner, today’s The Hill, and today’s Washington Times.  Keep in mind that the name of this blog is “Right Wing Granny.”  Although I have been blessed with good health, the concept of rationing medical care to the older generation is near and dear to me.

The Washington Times points out that although the Obama Administration has cited Dr. Berwick’s credentials including current roles as a professor at Harvard Medical School and the Harvard School of Public Health as reasons he is eminently qualified to head Medicare and Medicaid, these credentials are not what they appear to be. 

According to the Washington Times:

“But Dr. Berwick hasn’t seen a patient in years.  And the two Harvard professor positions listed on his White House biography as well as another position as a senior scientist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston are essentially “honorary professorships,” which require two or three seminars or meetings a year…”

The President is totally within his rights to nominate someone for a recess appointment.  It is unfortunate, however, that he is making an appointment without any debate to oversee a healthcare reform program that was passed over the wishes of the American people.  If the healthcare reform bill is such a good thing, why is this appointment being done in a way that will avoid discussing what healthcare reform means?

This article is based on two sources, The Hill and Power Line.  Both articles were published yesterday.

Ron Christie from The Hill attended the United States Commission on Civil Rights’ hearings yesterday on the U. S. Department of Justice and the New Black Panther Party litigation.  If you have not yet seen the video of the new Black Panthers standing outside one of the polling places in Philadelphia, you can go to YouTube and watch it.  It is stunning.  The video only shows a small part of what was going on–there was serious intimidation of voters in Philadelphia.

According to The Hill:

“Here’s where things get interesting. After the government had won its case in the absence of the defense to present itself, the Department of Justice abruptly changed course and sought to voluntarily dismiss the charges against three of the defendants while giving a slap on the hand to another by telling him that he was not able to go to Philadelphia polling stations through the 2012 elections. The big question as to why the Department of Justice would drop the charges on a clear-cut case of voter intimidation startled many; in today’s commission hearing, I think we found the answer that had so far been elusive.”

J. Christian Adams, testifying before the Commission on Civil Rights stated that senior officials within the Obama Justice Department had told employees that they were not to bring voting-rights cases where the alleged victim in the case was white.

Power Line reports the following via Pajamas Media:

“Several former DOJ employees have been in contact with Pajamas Media, interested in publicly supporting J. Christian Adams as he comes forward about the DOJ’s failure to enforce the country’s laws from a race-neutral perspective.”

It is amazing that the mainstream media has not covered this story.  How this case is eventually handled will determine if America is capable of becoming a ‘color blind’ society.  It is wrong to intimidate voters whatever color they may be.  The actions of the new Black Panthers were a threat to voting rights–the actions of the Justice Department since the incident are a threat to our democracy.

Boston.com posted a story today about Rhode Island State Troopers enforcing immigration laws.  Instead of releasing people who are here illegally who are involved in accidents or stopped for traffic violations, the troopers are reporting illegals they encounter to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE. 

The commander of the Rhode Island State Police, Colonel Brendan P. Doherty, has stated, “There are police chiefs throughout New England who hide from the issue . . . and I’m not hiding from it.  I would feel that I’m derelict in my duties to look the other way.”

In Massachusetts, Governor Patrick has opposed using state troopers to enforce immigration laws.  The two other people running for governor in November in Massachusetts would like to see the laws enforced. 

The article states:

“With Congress mired in an increasingly angry debate over the 12 million illegal immigrants nationwide, police are left to contend with the fallout, from hard-core criminals who hide their identities to hard-working laborers who drive without licenses because they need to earn money to send home to their families.

“By some accounts, having states collaborate more closely with ICE could improve public safety. ICE has repeatedly urged police departments to take advantage of its Law Enforcement Support Center in Vermont, a 24-hour network that is distinct from the controversial 287(g) program.” 

America desperately needs to fix its immigration laws.  We need to let in more people who will assimilate into our society and work hard for their own prosperity and the prosperity of America.  Right now our immigration system is so wrapped up in red tape that it takes years to come to America legally.  I sympathize with those people who have decided to take short cuts, but the law needs to be enforced.  I would support ‘immigration reform’ if I thought the government was actually capable of fixing itself.