The Cost Of President Obama’s War On Coal

America is to coal as Saudi Arabia is to oil. We have a lot of it and use it domestically to generate cheap electricity. Unfortunately, that is about to change.

Breitbart.com reported yesterday:

In January of 2008, then Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama, talking about his energy plan, told the San Francisco Chronicle, “When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…” He wasn’t kidding.

He was talking about the impact of Cap and Trade, a bill he assumed Congress would pass. Congress did not pass the bill, but the President is using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement to provisions of the bill without Congressional approval.

The article reports:

This isn’t just hyperbole. A survey of electricity executive indicates 90 percent of them expect the costs of moving away from coal power plants to lead to higher electricity bills for consumers. More than half of the survey respondents predict at least a 10 percent increase.

More than a survey, as Phil Kerpen, President of American Commitment, reports:

…PJM Interconnection, the company that operates the electric grid for 13 states held its 2015 capacity auction…The market-clearing price for new 2015 capacity – almost all natural gas – was $136 per megawatt. That’s eight times higher than the price for 2012, which was just $16 per megawatt.

But don’t expect this White House to care. They have no reason to. These price spikes are a few years away and will come long after President Obama will face voters for the last time. He’ll either be a President in his last term or a former President, neither of which carry accountability.

The obvious questions here is, “What can we do to stop the dramatic rise in the cost of electricity (and these people want us to buy electric cars?)?” The only answer is for voters to become aware of what they are facing and share the information with other voters. As long as the Senate is controlled by Democrats, they will not pass legislation that will stop the attack on coal (and thus raise electricity prices). The only way to stop a drastic increase in the cost of lighting your home, cooking your food, watching television, and using your computer is to vote for Republicans for Congress in November.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

About Those National Security Leaks

It will be interesting to find out if any information on who leaked the national security information on the Stuxnet virus is revealed by the special counsel, but whatever further information is released, the Israelis have decided to tell their side of the story.

Breitbart.com is reporting today that Israel intelligence claims that it first developed the Stuxnet virus and that President Obama joined in later after Israel had some difficulty convincing him to do so. The Israelis are accusing President Obama of claiming credit for the Stuxnet virus in order to increase his chances of re-election.

In IsraelSpy.com Yossi Melman reports:

The Israeli officials actually told me a different version. They said that it was Israeli intelligence that began, a few years earlier, a cyberspace campaign to damage and slow down Iran’s nuclear intentions. And only later they managed to convince the USA to consider a joint operation — which, at the time, was unheard of. Even friendly nations are hesitant to share their technological and intelligence resources against a common enemy. In our book, Spies Against Armageddon, we will reveal much more about the special strategic relations and cooperation between the CIA and the Mossad and the importance given by the Aman (military intelligence) to cyberspace warfare.

Yet my Israeli sources understand the sensitivity and the timing of the issue and are not going to be dragged into a battle over taking credit. “We know that it is the presidential election season,” one Israeli added, ”and don’t want to spoil the party for President Obama and his officials, who shared in a twisted and manipulated way some of the behind-the-scenes secrets of the success of cyberwar.”

This is interesting on a couple of levels–Israel would have more motivation to develop a virus to slow down Iran’s nuclear program–it is a nearer threat to Israel than it is to America, and also Israel has no reason to actually support the re-election of Barack Obama–he has not always treated them well.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if some of the leaks the White House was being investigated for turned out to be untrue to begin with?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Click And Clack Are Retiring

Today’s Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Magliozzi Brothers, Tom and Ray, of the NPR Radio Show “Car Talk” (where they are known as the Tappet Brothers) are retiring. They will stop recording new shows in October. “Car Talk” began taping 35 years ago at Boston’s MBUR radio station. I have no idea how good their advice was, but they were extremely entertaining. I also enjoyed the ‘puzzler’ that they would inject into the show. I am sorry to see them go.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Accounting Tricks In Obamacare

Today’s Wall Street Journal (this is the link, but it is subscribers only) reported on an accounting trick used to disguise the actual cost of Obamacare. This is one of those articles I occasionally post that I do not fully understand. Be forewarned.

When the debt forecast was released Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) explained that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) subsidies are not indexed over the long term. This means that the numbers are not adjusted as the value of the dollar and the cost of living change. How does that impact the program? In one of two ways–the first is that Congress will intervene (as they do on the AMT to prevent it from impacting less wealthy voters) or that Americans will have to pay a larger part of their every increasing health insurance premiums. Under the first scenario the cost of the program to the government increases greatly, under the second scenario the cost of the program to every American increases greatly. Either way, it doesn’t sound like a good deal.

Unfortunately there has never historically been a government program that shrank instead of grew. Unless Obamacare is overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by the next Congress, it will be cost nightmare for all Americans.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Stuck On Stupid

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at PJ Media today about the recent fuss over leaks of classified information. Mr. McCarthy points out a few things about the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the leaks. First of all Mr. McCarthy points out that the sources of the leaks are named in the New York Times articles containing the leaks!

Mr. McCarthy points out:

At the very beginning of the 6300-word kill-list epic, it says: “In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of [Obama’s] current and former advisers described Mr. Obama’s evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda.” The account goes on to quote, for example, former White House chief-of-staff Bill Daley, who not only confirms the existence of a kill-list but describes the considerations behind adding names to it. Current and former national security officials are quoted, in many instances by name (e.g., national security adviser Thomas Donilon and former national intelligence director Dennis Blair). And when names are not given, the Times quotes, for example, “one participant” in the approximately weekly meetings — videoconferences run by the Pentagon but involving national security officials across the administration — who describes some of the criteria for adding or removing terrorists from the kill-list.

Attorney General Eric Holder has appointed two special prosecutors to investigate the security leaks–Ron Machen, the U.S. attorney for the District of Colombia, and Rod Rosenstein.

The article further points out:

…That is, everyone on the team reports to Holder and, ultimately, Obama — they are not independent. The attorney general has shrewdly moved with apparent speed and responsiveness to address congressional concerns. He will be portrayed as having assembled a team of well-respected investigators who will home in on corruption while being meticulously careful about the top-secret intelligence that must be sifted through and the First Amendment concerns attendant to leak cases. The existence of the well publicized investigation will stop the public flow of information, and the team will get back to you by, say, late 2013 or early 2014, with what they’ve discovered. Maybe we’ll still remember what they were investigating … but I doubt it.

Getting honest answers about anything from the Obama Justice Department has proved to be something of a challenge. I suggest we don’t hold our breath waiting for the results of this investigation. Unfortunately, if things run true to form, the reputations of two good men may be ruined in the process.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Little Engine That Could

Most of us grew up hearing the story of the little engine that could–the train that made it up the incredibly steep mountain despite being small and seemingly insignificant. In today’s economic news we have another little engine that could.

Investor’s Business Daily posted a story yesterday about the economic success story of the small country of Estonia. Paul Krugman posted a short article in the New York Times on Friday stating:

Jörg Asmussen is Germany’s man at the ECB, which means that what he says matters. Here’s his speech in Riga earlier this week, asserting that the Baltic experience shows that austerity and internal devaluation actually do work. Notice that his evidence comes entirely from one year of fairly fast growth after an incredible decline. So it’s important to say that this proves very little.

One of the things to note about many liberals is that when the facts disagree with their theories, they dismiss the facts as irrelevant. Anyway, Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves responded to Mr. Krugman’s comments with a number of tweets (follow the above link to Investor’s Business Daily to read some of them), but the facts tell the true story.

The article reports:

Estonia did the opposite of what Krugman prescribed over three years, and as a result shook off recession and returned to high economic growth. It now stands like a colossus disproving Krugman’s policy prescriptions.

America, on the other hand, has been following Mr. Krugman’s advice for three years. What have we got to show for it? Results matter.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Alabama Gets It Right

Regular readers of this blog are familiar with Agenda 21. I have written about it a number of times (one example–rightwinggranny.com). Essentially, Agenda 21 is a UN-backed program to end private property rights in America.

Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about a move made by the Alabama legislature to pre-empt Agenda 21:

Agenda 21 has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate, but it may not have to be if in a second Obama term the Environmental Protection Agency pursues it by stealth, as it has other environmental agendas that make war on the free enterprise system and rights we hold dear.

One of those is property rights. “Land … cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market,” Agenda 21 says.

“Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.”

The article reports on what the legislature in Alabama has done:

…Alabama recently passed Senate Bill 477 unanimously in both of its houses. The legislation bars the taking of private property in Alabama without due process and says that “Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in or traceable to Agenda 21.”

We live in a representative republic that theoretically honors states’ rights. It is encouraging to know that one state recognizes the potential problems that could be caused if the federal government continues to usurp those rights. Hopefully other states will follow the example of Alabama.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Do The Bishops Speak For The Catholic Church ?

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted a story today about a recent statement by former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

The article reports:

…CNSNews.com asked Pelosi, who is Catholic, whether she supported her church in the lawsuits it has filed, which argue that the administration’s regulation violates the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.

“What about the 43 Catholic institutions [that] have now sued the administration over the regulation that requires them to provide contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacients in their health care plans?” CNSNews.com asked. “They say that violates their religious freedom.  Do you support the Catholic Church in their lawsuits against the administration?”

“Well, I don’t think that’s the entire Catholic Church,” Pelosi responded. “Those people have a right to sue, but I don’t think they’re speaking ex cathedra for the Catholic Church.  And there are people in the Catholic Church, including some of the bishops, who have suggested that some of this may be premature,” Pelosi said.

The Bishops represent the leadership of the Catholic Church. Part of their responsibility is to guide the Church and provide direction.That is what the Bishops are doing, and doing it very well. The problem is that what they are doing interferes with Ms. Pelosi’s politics. Is Ms. Pelosi concerned that the religious freedom of her church is under attack? Obviously not.

The article reminds us:

As most Catholics outside of Capitol Hill know and understand, the bishops speak for the Catholic Church, quite literally within their own dioceses, and in every other way when united as a group.  They do not need an ex cathedra declaration to make decisions on public policy (and as I noted above, most of them would go a lifetime without seeing one anyway).   Furthermore, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops unanimously oppose the HHS mandate and have called for opposition to it.  That is speaking with as much unanimity as one is likely to find within the Catholic Church, and while that doesn’t mean that every Catholic has to agree with it, it does mean that every Catholic should at least recognize that the bishops are indeed speaking for the Church in this matter.

I don’t know if Obamacare will be overturned, but any law that can be used to limit religious freedom in this way needs to be overturned.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Is The Mainstream Media Planning To Vet Both Candidates ?

Stanley Kurtz posted a story at National Review Online today that included proof of President Obama’s membership in the New Party during the late 1990’s. The New Party was ACORN’s (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) political arm.

The article reports:

The documents reveal that the New Party’s central aim was to move the United States steadily closer to European social democracy, a goal that Mitt Romney has also attributed to Obama. New Party leaders disdained mainstream Democrats, considering them tools of business, and promised instead to create a partnership between elected officials and local community organizations, with the goal of socializing the American economy to an unprecedented degree.

When Stanley Kurtz reported in 2008 that then-candidate Obama had been a member of the New Party, the charge was denied.

The article reports:

The Fight the Smears website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois senate: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.” Drawing on her testimony, Fight the Smears conceded that the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined, adding that “he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.”

We’ve seen that this is false. Obama formally requested New Party endorsement, signed the candidate contract, and joined the party. Is it conceivable that Obama’s own campaign manager could have been unaware of this? The notion is implausible. And the documents make Harwell’s assertion more remarkable still.

I don’t know if the press will do any better at reporting on President Obama’s ties to the New Party during this election than they were in 2008. Whether the press reports it or not, it is rather obvious by the decisions being made by President Obama that he sees America in a different light than the majority of Americans.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Raw Materials Are Part Of National Security

Yesterday’s Washington Examiner reported that because of new environmental regulations and declining National Defense Stockpile inventories, the United States is importing 43 percent of minerals like lithium and bismuth from China. The article also notes that the U. S. national security industry is 90 to 100 percent dependent on foreign suppliers for those minerals. The United States is also at least 50 percent dependent on foreign imports for 43 minerals. Obviously, this is as much a threat to national security as our dependence on foreign oil.

The article concludes:

“The U.S. government desperately needs a coherent national mineral access strategy,” said Daniel McGroarty, President of the American Resources Policy Network. “We are acutely dependent on foreign supplies of non-fuel minerals and metals that are vital to commercial manufacturing and advanced weapons systems. Our exposure to potential supply disruptions is a profound national security threat.”

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Taking A Stand For Traditional Marriage

Same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue–it is a cultural issue. I have no problem allowing civil unions for same-sex couples to insure they have the same rights as married couples, but as soon as you allow same-sex marriage, you create a problem of discrimination against those of us who believe what the Bible says. If same-sex marriage is legal, is it legal for a Bible-believing Pastor to refuse to marry a gay couple when the Bible tells him that what they are doing is a sin? Is it legal for a wedding photographer to refuse to photograph the wedding because he believes in the Bible, which says that what they are doing is a sin? Yesterday CBN News reported that a Christian photography studio was found guilty of discrimination by a New Mexico’s Court of Appeals because the studio refused to take pictures of a gay commitment ceremony . What about the First Amendment rights of the photography studio?

Yesterday the Quad-City Times reported that the Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr. of the Maple Street Missionary Baptist Church in Des Moines is resigning as branch president of the Iowa/Nebraska branch of the NAACP because of the national organization’s decision to endorse same-sex marriage.

The article reports:

Earlier this year, the national board of directors of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People voted to support marriage equality.

During a Statehouse rally in March 2011, Ratliff said his support for traditional marriage was biblically based, adding, “This isn’t a private interpretation, a Burger King religion, and by that I mean a ‘have it your way’ religion.”

Same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue–it is a cultural issue. If the Democrats who support same-sex marriage can convince the rest of us that it is a civil rights issue, they will win the argument. If those of us who support civil unions to give equal rights to gay couples but stop short of endorsing same-sex marriage will speak out and protect First Amendment rights, everyone’s rights will be protected.

Enhanced by Zemanta

In Remebrance Of D-Day

A website called American Rhetoric posted the remarks of President Ronald Reagan on the 40th Anniversary of D-Day:

 

We’re here to mark that day in history when the Allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For four long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved and the world prayed for its rescue. Here, in Normandy, the rescue began. Here, the Allies stood and fought against tyranny, in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.

 

We stand on a lonely, windswept point on the northern shore of France. The air is soft, but forty years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men, and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon. At dawn, on the morning of the 6th of June, 1944, two hundred and twenty-five Rangers jumped off the British landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs.

 

Their mission was one of the most difficult and daring of the invasion: to climb these sheer and desolate cliffs and take out the enemy guns. The Allies had been told that some of the mightiest of these guns were here, and they would be trained on the beaches to stop the Allied advance.

 

The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers at the edge of the cliffs, shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would grab another and begin his climb again. They climbed, shot back, and held their footing. Soon, one by one, the Rangers pulled themselves over the top, and in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs, they began to seize back the continent of Europe. Two hundred and twenty-five came here. After two days of fighting, only ninety could still bear arms.

 

And behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there. These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. And these are the heroes who helped end a war. Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender’s poem. You are men who in your “lives fought for life and left the vivid air signed with your honor.”

 

I think I know what you may be thinking right now — thinking “we were just part of a bigger effort; everyone was brave that day.” Well everyone was. Do you remember the story of Bill Millin of the 51st Highlanders? Forty years ago today, British troops were pinned down near a bridge, waiting desperately for help. Suddenly, they heard the sound of bagpipes, and some thought they were dreaming. Well, they weren’t. They looked up and saw Bill Millin with his bagpipes, leading the reinforcements and ignoring the smack of the bullets into the ground around him.

 

Lord Lovat was with him — Lord Lovat of Scotland, who calmly announced when he got to the bridge, “Sorry, I’m a few minutes late,” as if he’d been delayed by a traffic jam, when in truth he’d just come from the bloody fighting on Sword Beach, which he and his men had just taken.

 

There was the impossible valor of the Poles, who threw themselves between the enemy and the rest of Europe as the invasion took hold; and the unsurpassed courage of the Canadians who had already seen the horrors of war on this coast. They knew what awaited them there, but they would not be deterred. And once they hit Juno Beach, they never looked back.

 

All of these men were part of a roll call of honor with names that spoke of a pride as bright as the colors they bore; The Royal Winnipeg Rifles, Poland’s 24th Lancers, the Royal Scots’ Fusiliers, the Screaming Eagles, the Yeomen of England’s armored divisions, the forces of Free France, the Coast Guard’s “Matchbox Fleet,” and you, the American Rangers.

 

Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief. It was loyalty and love.

 

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead, or on the next. It was the deep knowledge — and pray God we have not lost it — that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

 

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

 

The Americans who fought here that morning knew word of the invasion was spreading through the darkness back home. They fought — or felt in their hearts, though they couldn’t know in fact, that in Georgia they were filling the churches at 4:00 am. In Kansas they were kneeling on their porches and praying. And in Philadelphia they were ringing the Liberty Bell.

 

Something else helped the men of D-day; their rock-hard belief that Providence would have a great hand in the events that would unfold here; that God was an ally in this great cause. And so, the night before the invasion, when Colonel Wolverton asked his parachute troops to kneel with him in prayer, he told them: “Do not bow your heads, but look up so you can see God and ask His blessing in what we’re about to do.” Also, that night, General Matthew Ridgway on his cot, listening in the darkness for the promise God made to Joshua: “I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.”

 

These are the things that impelled them; these are the things that shaped the unity of the Allies.

 

When the war was over, there were lives to be rebuilt and governments to be returned to the people. There were nations to be reborn. Above all, there was a new peace to be assured. These were huge and daunting tasks. But the Allies summoned strength from the faith, belief, loyalty, and love of those who fell here. They rebuilt a new Europe together. There was first a great reconciliation among those who had been enemies, all of whom had suffered so greatly. The United States did its part, creating the Marshall Plan to help rebuild our allies and our former enemies. The Marshall Plan led to the Atlantic alliance — a great alliance that serves to this day as our shield for freedom, for prosperity, and for peace.

 

In spite of our great efforts and successes, not all that followed the end of the war was happy or planned. Some liberated countries were lost. The great sadness of this loss echoes down to our own time in the streets of Warsaw, Prague, and East Berlin. The Soviet troops that came to the center of this continent did not leave when peace came. They’re still there, uninvited, unwanted, unyielding, almost forty years after the war. Because of this, allied forces still stand on this continent. Today, as forty years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose: to protect and defend democracy. The only territories we hold are memorials like this one and graveyards where our heroes rest.

 

We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars. It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We’ve learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent. But we try always to be prepared for peace, prepared to deter aggression, prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms, and yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation. In truth, there is no reconciliation we would welcome more than a reconciliation with the Soviet Union, so, together, we can lessen the risks of war, now and forever.

 

It’s fitting to remember here the great losses also suffered by the Russian people during World War II. Twenty million perished, a terrible price that testifies to all the world the necessity of ending war. I tell you from my heart that we in the United States do not want war. We want to wipe from the face of the earth the terrible weapons that man now has in his hands. And I tell you, we are ready to seize that beachhead. We look for some sign from the Soviet Union that they are willing to move forward, that they share our desire and love for peace, and that they will give up the ways of conquest. There must be a changing there that will allow us to turn our hope into action.

 

We will pray forever that someday that changing will come. But for now, particularly today, it is good and fitting to renew our commitment to each other, to our freedom, and to the alliance that protects it.

 

We’re bound today by what bound us 40 years ago, the same loyalties, traditions, and beliefs. We’re bound by reality. The strength of America’s allies is vital to the United States, and the American security guarantee is essential to the continued freedom of Europe’s democracies. We were with you then; we’re with you now. Your hopes are our hopes, and your destiny is our destiny.

 

Here, in this place where the West held together, let us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for. Let our actions say to them the words for which Matthew Ridgway listened: “I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.”

 

Strengthened by their courage and heartened by their value [valor] and borne by their memory, let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died.

 

Thank you very much, and God bless you all.

I miss President Reagan.

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Walker Won

Last night, National Review Online posted an article stating their opinion of the reasons Governor Walker won in Wisconsin. The recall election was a very expensive race–nearly $62 million spent by the end of May.

The article reports:

Walker won because his reform program is popular, and because it is working. The governor’s personal approval numbers in Wisconsin hover around 50 percent — not bad for a man whom most Wisconsinites have seen Photoshopped into a Hitler mustache and Nazi regalia at least once in the last year. But more telling is the popularity of Walker’s reforms. According to one recent Reason-Rupe poll, 72 percent of Wisconsinites favor the requirement that public-sector workers increase their pension contributions to 6 percent of their salaries. And 71 percent favor making government employees pay 12 percent instead of 6 percent of their health-care premiums.

These are actually modest reforms that did nothing more than bring the public sector employees more into line with what private sector employees receive as benefits. The savings on reforms like this can make the difference between a state having a balanced budget or sliding deeper into debt. Governor Walker brought fiscal sanity to the state budget.

The article at The Hill commented on the amount of money spent and where it came from:

Walker won because he represented the taxpayer, while his opponent represented the groups whose livelihoods depend on bilking the taxpayer. Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett served as less of an alternative than a vessel for Big Labor’s unmoored wrath. Barrett raised a mere $4 million on his own, while outside PACs did the heavy lifting — We Are Wisconsin raised more than $5.5 million in the last month alone, including seven-figure donations from AFSCME and the AFL-CIO, six-figure donations from the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, and a mere $720 from its three (that’s three) individual donors. The Left will complain that Walker outspent Barrett handily, but this is no vice considering Walker also handily outraised Barrett in individual donations, about three-quarters of which were for less than $50. It was Walker’s strength, after all, that convinced national Democrats to stop spending on a race they didn’t think they could win.

It was a very good night for conservatives, but this was just one battle in a very long war. We need to understand that bringing sanity back to public employee benefits is going to be a long, hard road.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Wayward Child Of The Democrat Party

Bill Clinton has provided a lot of entertainment lately in a rather vicious political climate. I truly feel that President Clinton is simply attempting to pave the way for Hillary‘s campaign of 2016. Well, President Clinton is at in again.

The Hill is reporting today that the Republicans are pointing to President Clinton’s recent statement that he would continue the current tax rates as they are, rather than only continuing tax breaks for the middle class. He’s off the reservation again. It seems as if he has been encouraged to alter his statements slightly.

The article reports:

Clinton, in an interview on CNBC, said he had “no problem” with extending all of the tax cuts temporarily to avoid the year-end “fiscal cliff” that economists warn could slow the economy or even cause a recession. A spokesman for the former president later clarified that he “does not believe the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans should be extended again.”

Notice that the clarification is different than the original statement. Must have been another trip to the woodshed!

There is a tax bomb scheduled to hit the middle class on January 1, 2013. It is a combination of the Bush tax rates expiring and the additional taxes imposed by Obamacare. If something is not done to stop the new taxes, the American economy will be seriously slowed by the extra tax burden.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Snoopy and D-Day

June 6, 1944, was D-Day. It was the day the allied forces stormed the beaches of France to bring freedom to Europe. Every year since 1993, Charles M. Schultz observed the anniversary of D-Day in his comic strip PEANUTS. Why? Below is a picture from one of the comic strips.

 

A few years ago, when I visited the Charles M. Schultz Museum in Santa Rosa, California, I found out the answer. Charles Schultz was in the army during World War II and was one of the soldiers training for the D-Day landing. Because of an illness at home, he was sent home before his unit shipped overseas. He was later attached to another unit. The unit he was originally with landed on the beaches of France and took heavy losses. That is why Snoopy is with General Eisenhower every year on June 6.

My father was one of the men who landed on the beaches of France on that day. I can’t imagine the things that he saw or had to do. I will always be grateful for the courage of all of our military and their willingness to do the things that keep us free.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Moot Transparency

Last night I attended my town’s annual Town Meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to allow the voters to pass the budget for the coming year and discuss other issues put on the warrant by various town departments or petitioners. There were probably about 100 to 150 people there. There are about 5,400 registered voters in the town.

Town Meetings are like elections–a lot depends on who shows up. Last night was no exception. One of the major items being discussed in the town at this time is whether or not to allow the local racetrack to put in slot machines. The racetrack currently has off-track betting on horse and dog races along with simulcasts of various races. There is an element in the town that wants to prevent slot machines from being added. Now you might think that someone who writes a blog named rightwinggranny would be opposed to bringing in slot machines. I’m not. There has been some talk around town about the evils of gambling and the horror it would bring to the town. (Do you remember the song about “Pool” in the Music Man? That’s kind of the way some of the talk is going.) Until the convenience stores stop selling lottery tickets, churches stop playing Bingo, and charitable organizations stop holding raffles, I really think the arguments are rather hypocritical.

Why do I bring this up? Last night, the foes of the slot machines tried a backdoor approach to stopping them. They put an item on the warrant through petition requiring selectmen to have a cost-benefit analysis done on putting in slot machines; then they amended it demanding two independent studies. They further muddied the issue by implying that the selectmen in the town could not be trusted to be objective in studying the proposal or making a decision. The motion was defeated 83-33.

I am a strong supporter of transparency in government. Our selectmen meet weekly, and the meetings are open to the public and broadcast on cable TV. Anyone who is interested can see what is going on. The petitioners should have known that the selectmen had already planned the study they were requesting. The Town Administrator explained that the study was necessary because of the impact of the proposal. It was also explained that the Town Meeting does not have the authority to compel the selectmen to take a specific action.

If the opponents want to stop gambling in our town, they will have a chance to do it at the ballot box. There was no reason to act as though they did not trust the selectmen to make the decision. The selectmen serve three-year terms. If the group that opposes gambling does not trust them, they need to put forth their own candidate. As someone who has lived in this town for more than thirty years, I think our selectmen are trustworthy and perfectly capable of making the right decision.

Enhanced by Zemanta

With Friends Like These…

One of the things that we all need to remember (not necessarily happily) about the November election is that on November 7, 2012, the 2016 presidential campaign begins. Obviously, one of the major players in that campaign on the Democrat side will be Hillary Clinton. Hillary has kept her head down during the past three years and behaved very well. Predictably, her husband has not.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted a story today about some of President Clinton‘s recent statements. President Clinton remarked that Mitt Romney had a ‘sterling’ record when he ran Bain Capital. President Obama has used attacks on Bain Capital and Mitt Romney’s record there as a major part of his campaign. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton was not the only Democrat who felt the attacks were not helpful.

Mr. Morrissey explains the problems with the attacks:

While Obama attacked Romney for normal private-equity management, he’s been trying to raise money hand over fist from the same industry.  In fact, a Bain executive, Jonathan Lavine, is one of Obama’s major bundlers and was with the company (and Romney was not) when GS Industries shut down the steel plant, a decision used to slam Romney in an Obama campaign ad.

I am not sure the average voter is aware of the hypocrisy here, but at suspect at some point the Romney camp will point it out.

The article rightly concludes:

However, it’s also just as true that Clinton waited for quite a while to defend Romney’s business record, and his advice in this case — to find another line of attack — is probably a lot smarter than Simon’s advice to keep beating a very dead horse.

Expect to see a lot more of Bill Clinton in the next four years.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Today In Wisconsin

Today is the day that Wisconsin voters finally get to go to the polls and put an end to the seemingly endless debate about whether Scott Walker is an angel or a devil. Today’s Chicago Sun Times posted a story about today’s election. The story reminds us that the original issue that caused the recall of Governor Walker— reform of public employee unions–hasn’t been talked about much during the campaign. There is a reason for that–the reforms have been highly successful. One of the things that Governor Walker changed was the health insurance for teachers in the state. Previously teachers’ health insurance and retirement were handled exclusively by the the WEA Trust, a creation of the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), As reported in rightwinggranny.com in February 2011, the WEA Trust has come under investigation for tax violations and unreported political donations. Governor Walker moved the teachers to the same health insurance program that covers other state employees.

The article at the Sun Times reports:

Public service employees are finally making reasonable contributions to their pension and health benefits. Government employee unions no longer dictate work rules. Local school districts and governments with new latitude to renegotiate contracts have saved Wisconsin taxpayers $1 billion, according to the governor’s office.

The article concludes:

Walker never trailed in the polls but some surveys showed a tightening of the race in the final days. The voters have the final say Tuesday. They will decide whether Wisconsin will lead the nation in rescuing taxpayers from grasping government employee unions and the self-serving politicians who have appeased them by caving to their demands or return to policies that risk bankruptcy for government budgets, endangering vital government services and leaving taxpayers with the staggering bill.

What Governor Walker has done in Wisconsin is needed in almost all states. Unfunded liabilities in state budgets caused by unfunded public pensions are bankrupting the states. In some cases, towns and cities are spending more money on pensions for police and firefighters than they are for active police and firefighters. I don’t have a problem with pensions for police and firefighters, but money for those pensions needs to be set aside during the time those people are working–it should not be an unfunded liability.

Wisconsin will be an interesting bellwether.

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Economic Woes Affect Population Movement

Michael Barone posted an article at Townhall.com today explaining how the current economic recession is affecting population trends in America. One example cited is the migration to California which began during World War II and ended during the 1980’s. Since 1990, Americans have been leaving California. The only thing that has kept the state’s population growing at the national average has been Mexican and Asian immigration.

Mr. Barone reports in the article:

My prediction is that we won’t ever again see the heavy Latin immigration we saw between 1983 and 2007, which averaged 300,000 legal immigrants and perhaps as many illegals annually.

Mexican and other Latin birthrates fell more than two decades ago. And Mexico, source of 60 percent of Latin immigrants, is now a majority-middle-class country.

Asian immigration may continue, primarily from China and India, especially if we have the good sense to change our laws to let in more high-skill immigrants.

But the next big immigration source, I think, will be sub-Saharan Africa. We may end up with prominent politicians who actually were born in Kenya.

The state that is currently growing is Texas. One in twelve Americans now live in Texas. Texas has taken steps to attract businesses and people–it has enacted tax and tort policies to make the state business friendly. If the state governments are the laboratories for the federal government, we can learn a lot from Texas.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Politics Is More Important Than National Security

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted a story about the problem with security leaks in the Obama Administration. After the killing of Osama Bin Laden, there were a number of details about the operation leaked that put members of our armed forces in danger. Then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke out about the dangers of these leaks at Camp Lejeune in May 2011.

Some of Secretary Gates’ statement is posted on YouTube:

Speaking to Marines at Camp Lejeune on Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed concern over the safety of the Navy SEALs who killed Al Qaeda chief, Osama Bin Laden. The threat of retaliation against the elite and classified SEAL squadron – SEAL team 6 – has increased after operational details were leaked to the press by the Obama administration.

A helicopter crashed in Afghanistan in August 2011, killing 30 Americans, most of them belonging to SEAL team 6. We have no way of knowing whether the helicopter was attacked because the enemy knew who was on board.

The article at the Daily Caller reports:

Unfortunately, the Bin Laden leaks have not turned out to be isolated incidents. In early May, after the disruption of a terrorist plot in Yemen, reports surfaced concerning the reported role of British intelligence in the operation. This leak was especially serious in that it risked the trust caveat that underpins America’s most important (but increasingly sensitive) intelligence relationship.
 
There have been two more sensitive leaks recently. The first is the leaking of the President’s strategy for dealing with terrorists. Why in the world would you release your strategy for winning a war to the enemy while the war is still going on? The second story had to do with the role America played in the recent cyber attacks on Iran. The Obama Administration needs to learn how to be quiet. This will only invite major retaliation from the people impacted by the attack.
 
The Daily Caller concludes:
 
Faced with these leaks, we should demand two things from the government. First, classified material must be restricted to those officials who need it. The president should make clear to his political appointees that the unauthorized disclosure of this material is absolutely unacceptable. There must not be a divided approach where government workers are punished for leaks, while appointees feel free to disclose restricted information as they please. Second, where leaks do take place, the Justice Department must conduct investigations to identify those responsible and pursue punishment against them. These two steps would bring some rational purpose back to the way in which intelligence material is handled in Washington.

In the space of just over a week, Obama administration officials have leaked significant elements of two critical national security endeavors. In disclosing this information, the officials responsible have asserted Obama’s re-election in precedence to the demands of national security. This is a disgrace that must not be allowed to continue.

I understand that this is an election year, but that is no excuse for risking American national security in the campaign.

 
 

 

 

 
Enhanced by Zemanta

As We Await The Supreme Court’s Decision On Obamacare…

CNS News posted a story on Friday about the impact of Obamacare on the cost of health insurance.

Edward Fensholt, senior vice president of Lockton Companies, LLC, an insurance brokerage and consulting firm that provides employee-benefits expertise to 2,500 mostly middle-market employers, told the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions:

“These mandates have increased our clients’ health plan costs 2 to 3 percent on average to this point,” he said. And he said the costs will escalate further when new rules — such as reductions in waiting periods and the automatic enrollment requirement — take effect in 2014.

Note that the new rules take effect long after the coming election.

The article reports:

Bill Streitberger, vice president of human resources for the Red Robin restaurant chain, told the panel that when health care costs increase, his company has less money to invest in opening new restaurants.

For the last three years, he noted, Red Robin’s health care costs per employee have increased more than six percent every year — a much greater pace than the growth of Red Robin’s sales or net income, he said.

There are some basic changes needed in America’s health insurance system–portability, tax breaks for buying health insurance, tort reform, etc. Obamacare never addresses tort reform. Obamacare takes away the free market and places the entire healthcare system under government control. That is a really bad idea, and hopefully the Supreme Court will strike down the entire bill so that the current Congress can try again.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Things Are Not Going Well For The Global Warming Crowd

Last Saturday the Miami Herald posted a story about some delays Shell Oil is experiencing as it is poised to begin drilling for oil in the Arctic.

The article reports:

The summer ice melt in the Arctic has often reached record levels in recent years in what many scientists believe is a sign of climate change. But this year a high pressure zone over the coast of Alaska, low winter temperatures and certain ocean currents have combined to bring unusually large amounts of ice not only to Alaska’s northern coast, but farther south in the Bering Sea as well, National Weather Service officials said.
“I do think it’s going to be a slow breakup this year,” Kathleen Cole, sea ice program leader for the weather service, told the Los Angeles Times.
The result is that while Canadian waters in the far northern Atlantic have relatively low ice levels, Alaska is an iceberg – at least for now.

I guess Alaska didn’t get the message about global warming. The bottom line here is that man does not control the weather and has a very limited impact on it. There are natural climate cycles that the earth goes through (there was a period of global warming in the Middle Ages–long before the industrial revolution). Somehow it all evens out.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Whoops!!!

There has been an October surprise in Wisconsin, in June, that has gone horribly wrong for the perpetrators. Gateway Pundit posted a story today about the Democrats latest attempt to recall Scott Walker. The Wisconsin Citizens Media Co-op posted a story yesterday entitled, “Integrity: The Child Scott Walker Left Behind.” It is the story of a college co-ed who got pregnant by Scott Walker, who later ignored her, denied the child was his, and never paid child support. The Wisconsin Citizens Media Co-op posted the young woman’s testimony and cited that testimony to show that Scott Walker was not a man of integrity. Well, maybe the Wisconsin Citizens Media Co-op is not a newspaper of quality investigative reporting–it was a different Scott Walker! The person who fathered the child was Scott Alan Walker–not Governor Scott Kevin Walker.

I can understand how this sort of mistake can be made, but when dealing with a fairly common name, shouldn’t a publication make sure of its facts before printing or posting a story. Usually October (or in this case June) surprises are effective because there is little time to dispute the story. All of us as voters need to take everything with a grain of salt that is said within a week of an election.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Elizabeth Warren Is the Democrat’s Choice To Run Against Scott Brown

Today’s New York Times is reporting that Elizabeth Warren has won the nomination of the Massachusetts Democrat Party and will be running against Scott Brown in November’s Senate race. Ms. Warren won nearly 96 percent of the votes at the state Democrat convention.

The article reports:

It was a foregone conclusion that Ms. Warren, who has been widely perceived as the presumptive nominee, would win the endorsement. The question was how many votes her rival, Marisa DeFranco, would receive. Ms. DeFranco, an immigration lawyer, needed 15 percent of the vote to earn a spot on the ballot.

During the past few days, Ms. Warren has been endorsed by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick

The article further reports:

Ms. Warren began the day with some good news with two new polls — from The Boston Globe and from Western New England University — showing her running essentially even with Mr. Brown.

Massachusetts is pretty much a one-party state, so I suppose it is not surprising to see Ms. Warren running even with Scott Brown, but I do find that somewhat hard to believe. In recent weeks it has become obvious that Ms. Warren has not been entirely honest about certain aspects of her heritage that she has used to advance her career. A lot of people I have talked to have been totally turned off to her as a candidate because of the ciaims of Indian heritage that may or may not be true. Scott Brown is likeable, personable (and frankly a whole lot less conservative than I would prefer), but he has never claimed to be a conservative, and I believe he has always voted for what he thought was in the best interest of the people he was elected to represent. Scott Brown is the best choice for the voters of Massachusetts–it will be interesting to see if they make that choice.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Creating Jobs With Stimulus Money

On Wednesday ABC News reported that Fisker Automotive, a company that received nearly $200 million in Obama administration loan money, is signaling that it may not build its next generation hybrid electric vehicle in the United States.

The article reports:

Fisker received federal funds in part to help purchase a shuttered General Motors plant in Delaware, where it predicted it would one day employ 2,000 auto workers to assemble the clean-burning gas-electric family car, known as the Atlantic.

But company executives began hinting in February that it would reconsider that plan and look for a cheaper place to build the car after the Department of Energy froze the $529 million green-energy loan the company had received, and had been drawing on since 2010.

The article further details the saga of the Karma, a flashy $100,000 hybrid sports sedan that it assembles in Finland. There have been some problems with the lithium-ion batteries in the Karma. The Karma that Consumer Reports was road testing stopped working in the middle of the road test. There was also a recall of the batteries because of a defect that raised the risk of fire.

This is another example of foolish spending on green energy by the current administration. I don’t think that I would let President Obama manage my stock portfolio.

Enhanced by Zemanta