EPA Pursuing Political Goals?

As I reported to you before the Cap & Trade bill went up for a vote in the House, the EPA apparently buried an internal report that cast doubt on the official findings. That report, however, was from WorldNetDaily, a source many on the liberal side deem unreliable and biased. That’s okay, I can do better.

It turns out that CBS, hardly a bastion of conservative thought, has done a similar piece on the subject. CBS News reports that the EPA appears to be covering up a process that was political instead of scientific, and that the paper trail they’ve obtained contradicts the official statements concerning this report.

The EPA defends itself two ways. First, they say:

"The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."

This, however, is contradicted by emails sent from the author’s manager:

"I decided not to forward your comments... I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." He also wrote to Carlin: "Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc."

Second, the EPA said:

For its part, the EPA sent CBSNews.com an e-mailed statement saying: "Claims that this individual’s opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted."

The problem is, they didn’t include any contradictory information in their report.

"The big question is: there is this general rule that when an agency puts something out for public evidence and comment, it's supposed to have the evidence supporting it and the evidence the other way," said Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C. that has been skeptical of new laws or regulations relating to global warming.

So, did the EPA suppress this report? There is evidence to indicate they may have. And the possible fallout from this?

“Kazman's group obtained the documents -- both CEI and Carlin say he was not the source -- and released the e-mails on Tuesday and the report on Friday. As a result of the disclosure, CEI has asked the EPA to re-open the comment period on the greenhouse gas regulatory proceeding, which ended on Tuesday.”

And also:

Rep. Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce committee, invoked Carlin's report in a floor speech during the debate on Friday. "The science is not there to back it up," Barton said. "An EPA report that has been suppressed... raises grave doubts about the endangerment finding. If you don't have an endangerment finding, you don't need this bill. We don't need this bill. And for some reason, the EPA saw fit not to include that in its decision." (The endangerment finding is the EPA's decision that carbon dioxide endangers the public health and welfare.)

"I'm sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach," Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the senior Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said in a statement. "But the EPA is supposed to reach its findings based on evidence, not on political goals. The repression of this important study casts doubts on EPA's finding, and frankly, on other analysis EPA has conducted on climate issues."

Well… another scandal, and this one showing that PresBo is relying on fraud to advance his agenda. It will be quite interesting to see how this plays out.

Read the rest...

Some Poll Results

I found three polls I want to point out. First, Rasmussen’s Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, which shows PresBo’s Presidential Approval Index holding at -2. (The Index is calculated by taking the percentage that “Strongly Approve” and subtracting from it the percentage that “Strongly Disapprove”. Obviously, a positive number is desired.)




The second poll was conducted about the economy, and found that 39% now blame our economic troubles on Obama. Though it still shows 54% blame Bush, that is down eight points from last month’s 62%. And the 39% who blame Obama is up 12 points from last month. The poll also found that 60% trust their own economic judgment, with only 30% trusting Obama’s more .

The third poll is about health care. Since Massachusetts is being used as a model for a national plan, it seemed fair to see what Massachusetts residents thought of their plan. Only 26% say their plan has been a success, and only 10% say health care has gotten better.

It seems that PresBo and I agree on something: Because of slipping poll numbers, if he wants to pass his agenda items he has to move FAST. The difference between us is that HE thinks his agenda items SHOULD be passed, and I do not.
Read the rest...

Cap & Trade Reality Check

Can I get a reality check on this Cap & Tax nonsense? I mean, they won in the House, right? The US House of Representatives passed the lousy bill, right? So why are opponents being demonized by the Democrats?

Don’t believe me? Did you see what Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) had to say?

"They [Republicans] want to play politics and see if they can keep any achievements from being accomplished that may be beneficial to the Democrats. They're rooting against the country and I think in this case, even rooting against the world because the world needs to get its act together to stop global warming."

Rooting against the world? Because a VERY large number of people don’t agree with his interpretation of available scientific data on the subject? Please.

But Paul Krugman from the New York Times went even further.

“So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement. But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases. And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.”

Now we’re traitors to the human race. Uh-huh. Look, if the scientific data were definitive, that’d be one thing. But science isn’t on your side. If it were, why would the EPA have to bury a report from one of its own long-term analysts that disagreed with the “official” PresBo stance?

“The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin's report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.”

I just have one piece of advice for the Democrats: You won in the House… now deal with it.

Read the rest...

What’s Up With PresBo’s Stimulus?

I mean, really. When he pushed it we were told different things. From one source, we were told we’d see results immediately.

“Larry Summers, director of the National Economic Council, was even more optimistic: “You'll see the effects begin almost immediately,” Summers told CNN in February.”

From another source, we would see results pretty quickly.

“Back in February, with Congress moving swiftly to approve President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package, White House budget director Peter Orszag said the benefits of the stimulus would “take weeks to months” to be felt.”

But now they have a problem. The unemployment rate continues to rise, far past the bogey-man rate that PresBo told us we’d hit WITHOUT the stimulus. The economy just doesn’t seem to be poised for a recovery… in fact, many economists think we’re going to experience a double-dip recession, where the economy will fall again after a short rebound. So, what’s a young Presidential Administration to do? That’s easy: move the goalposts so it’s easier to score.

“We always knew we were not going to get all that much fiscal impact during the first five to six months. The big impact starts to hit from about now onwards,” [Christina] Romer [chairman of the president’s Council on Economic Advisers] said.

Oh really? Always? Because the early rhetoric didn’t sound that way. And how do you explain away the high unemployment rate… which is still rising?

Just last month, Jared Bernstein, Vice President Joe Biden’s top economic adviser, joined administration officials in asserting that the stimulus was already working, despite rising unemployment rates. “The idea here is that, yes, the unemployment rate is rising, but it would be rising more quickly [without the bill],” Bernstein said on ABCNews.com’s “Top Line.” “We're spending about $1 billion a day -- and, by the way, with very careful oversight -- and that's creating, again, economic activity that would not have occurred in the absence of this plan. That's the essential point.”

Bull. How is it possible to prove what may have happened without that bill? Isn’t it just as plausible to assert that if THIS stimulus bill had failed to pass then Congress might have responded by passing a bill that would actually stimulate the economy without massively increasing the national debt and spending trillions of dollars?

We DO know that PresBo predicted his stimulus bill would cap unemployment at 8%, and threatened a 9% unemployment rate if we didn’t pass his stimulus. Well, we passed it, and unemployment is 9.4% and rising.

I wish PresBo would pick one lie… excuse me, optimistic belief… and stick with it. Shouldn’t changing canoes in mid-stream result in at least an occasional media-dunking? You’d think so, but the MSM doesn’t appear inclined to confront him very much over things like this.

Here’s a headline you’ll never see in the MSM: “Stimulus Not Working, Courts Hold Obama Liable For Costs.”

Ahhh… but one can dream.

Read the rest...

Does Nationalized Healthcare Work?

I say no, it does not. I can produce many arguments and examples of such failure, but today I’ll present evidence from across the pond in England. Yes, England’s much ballyhooed national health care has so many problems with long waiting lists for treatment that they are now offering to pay cancer patients to go get treatment privately.

“Cancer patients who face long waits in the NHS will be given cash to go private, in a radical shift of Government policy. Gordon Brown will unveil a significant expansion of private sector involvement in health provision as part of his much-hyped relaunch next week. For the first time, if a primary care trust (PCT) cannot give cancer patients a specialist appointment within two weeks of referral from a GP, it will have to provide equivalent funding for a private consultation.”

If England’s healthcare system is opening up critical care to private providers, then why do we want to move AWAY from private providers? It doesn’t make any sense.

UPDATE: Some reasons to NOT emulate Massachusetts' health care plan.


Read the rest...

Breaking News: Supreme Court Overrules Sotomayor

The United States Supreme Court has issued a ruling in the New Haven firefighters case. As you’ll recall, New Haven had a test for promotion that was supposed to treat minorities fairly, but the vast majority of those who qualified for promotion were white… so the city scrapped the test results. The white firefighters sued the City because of racial discrimination. Current candidate for the US Supreme Court Sotomayor had ruled against the white firefighters.

Today the US Supreme Court overruled Sotomayor in a 5-4 decisin, and declared that America’s anti-discrimination laws apply to everybody.

"The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions."

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Ginsburg, took the majority to task.

"Congress endeavored to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form. The damage today's decision does to that objective is untold."

Justice Ginsburg, it’s not equal opportunity if whites can be discriminated against because of their skin color. If only BLACKS cannot be discriminated against because of skin color, then what you’re defending is actually a DISCRIMINATION law.

If you’d like to read the full text of the decision, you can find it here.

This is a good decision, one that affirms that discrimination is discrimination, no matter the victims. Personally, I find it troubling that 4 justices find it okay to discriminate against SOME people, just not others.

Now, will this affect Sotomayor’s chances of being confirmed? It should, but I doubt PresBo or the Democratic majority really cares.

Read the rest...

Consensus On Cap & Trade Bill

Just like there is supposedly a “consensus” on human-caused global warming, so there is a consensus on PresBo’s bill to “fix” global warming through taxing the bejeezus out of everybody. And what is that consensus?



Doug Powers calls it “a crime of the century.” House majority leader Joe Boehner (R-Ohio) put it a little more succinctly.

When asked why he read portions of the cap-and-trade bill on the floor Friday night, Boehner told The Hill, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s--t."


The Cap & Tax bill will be, of course, an economic disaster.

“Its centerpiece is a "cap and trade" provision that has been rightfully derided as "cap and tax." It is in fact a tax on energy everywhere it is consumed on everything it is used to make or provide. It is the largest tax increase in American history — a tax on all Americans — even the 95% that President Obama pledged would never see a tax increase.”

But wait, it gets worse.

“As we've said before, capping emissions is capping economic growth. An analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation projects that by 2035 it would reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion. In an average year, 844,000 jobs would be destroyed, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by almost 2 million (see charts below).

“Consumers would pay through the nose as electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, as President Obama once put it, by 90% adjusted for inflation. Inflation-adjusted gasoline prices would rise 74%, residential natural gas prices by 55% and the average family's annual energy bill by $1,500.

“Hit hardest by all this would be the "95% of working families" Obama keeps mentioning as being protected from increased taxation. They are protected, that is, unless they use energy. Then they'll be hit by this draconian energy tax.”

And now we find out that domestic oil companies will probably respond to this tax by shutting down their operations in the US and importing more oil.

The equivalent of one in six U.S. refineries probably would close by 2020 as the cost of carbon allowances erases profits, according to the American Petroleum Institute, a Washington trade group known as API. Carbon permits would add 77 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline, said Russell Jones, the API’s senior economic adviser.

“Because it’s going to be more expensive to produce the stuff, refiners will slow down production and cut back on inventories to squeeze every penny of profit they can from the system,” said Geoffrey Styles, founder of GSW Strategy Group LLC in Vienna, Virginia. “We will end up with less domestic product on the market and a greater reliance on imports, all of which means higher, more volatile prices.”

And remember how PresBo has been trumpeting his claim that 95% of Americans would NOT see tax increases on his watch? Well now an administration spokesperson is backing off on that claim.

“The White House seems to be retreating from President Barack Obama’s campaign promise that he would not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000. Under persistent questioning from ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Sunday, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod declined to restate the vow and left open the possibility that the president might sign health care reform legislation that taxes high-cost, employer-provided insurance plans which some middle-class families currently receive tax free.”

Is there anybody that WOULD be exempt from such taxes? Well, yes, actually. Union members.

“Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, the chief congressional advocate of taxing some employer-provided benefits to help pay for an overhaul of the U.S. health system, says any change should exempt perks secured in existing collective- bargaining agreements, which can be in place for as long as five years. The exception, which could make the proposal more politically palatable to Democrats from heavily unionized states such as Michigan, is adding controversy to an already contentious debate. It would shield the 12.4 percent of American workers who belong to unions from being taxed while exposing some other middle-income workers to the levy.”

So all of you who voted for The Big O because he wouldn’t raise YOUR taxes… SURPRISE!!!!!

Are you starting to get an idea of the train-wreck that PresBo is attempting to cause?

Read the rest...

Cap & Trade Or Healthcare Reform?

Boy, PresBo really knows how to play the media, doesn’t he? After the Cap & Tax bill passed the House on Friday, PresBo issued a statement on Saturday that urged the Senate to quickly follow suit and approve the Legislation. But comments from several Senators on Friday indicated they would focus first on PresBo’s Healthcare bill. So Sunday, PresBo modified his statement and encouraged the Senate to pass the Cap & Tax bill, but only after approving the Healthcare bill.

Have you seen anybody else dealing with this issue?


Notice that his Sunday statement telling the Senate what he wanted from them was sort of like a parent who sees his kid in the tub and then tells him to take a bath. It was already going to happen that way. PresBo COULD have acknowledged it and said, “Yes, dealing with healthcare first is fine.” But he didn’t. THIS way, if the media cooperates, it sounds like the Senate is doing what he wants them to do. And the media is cooperating.

It’s more than a bit depressing, sometimes, to see the President of the United States never willing to admit he’s wrong and ALWAYS wanting to appear in control of every detail of everything. Newsflash, PresBo: The President isn’t SUPPOSED to be in charge of scheduling the Senate docket, so it’s okay if they do things in a different order than you asked them to. You don’t have to try to make it look like they’re blindly following your orders.

And if you’re following things on Healthcare, you’ll know that the Massachusetts universal healthcare plan is being used by many lawmakers as a model for what they want to do on a national basis. But now comes some very inconvenient news out of Massachusetts: Massachusetts doesn’t have enough money to pay for the coverage envisioned by the law.

“In June, state officials announced they are cutting $100 million from Commonwealth Care, which subsidizes premiums for needy residents. The poorest residents, along with the newest - legal immigrants - will take the hit. This outcome is not surprising, but it is instructive as President Obama pushes for a national healthcare plan.”

When will they bow to the reality that nationalized healthcare is NOT a good idea? Have we learned NOTHING from countries like Cuba and the USSR?

Read the rest...

Important Poll Question

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, this is a re-post of a previous poll, because I think not enough people responded to a very important question. The issue is whether or not elected officials should be held responsible for their actions.

So if you have not already done so, please take a moment and respond to this poll.

Read the rest...

Cap & Trade Roll Call

Friday, I posted how our Alabama Legislators voted. Today, I will post the exact roll call of the Cap & Tax vote. A total of 8 Republicans voted in favor of it, and 44 Democrats voted against it. The bill needed 218 votes to pass, and it got 219, so blame the 8 Republicans who crossed the aisle to vote in favor of this terrible piece of… legislation.

And there is some fear among the Democrats that we might see a repeat of history from 1993.

“As Democrats strained to win over crucial holdouts on the way to narrow, party-line approval of global warming legislation, they were dogged by a critical question: Has the political climate changed since 1993?


Veteran members of both parties vividly remember when many House Democrats, in the early months of the Clinton administration, reluctantly backed a proposed B.T.U. tax — a new levy on each unit of energy consumed — only to see it ignored by the Senate and seized as a campaign issue by Republicans, who took control of the House the next year.”

I don’t know if that is a high probability, but it is something I’d certainly like to see. And the key is us… if we keep protesting to the Senate, we at least stand a chance of defeating the measure.

Keep in mind that the Democrats were exerting all their efforts to get this passed, and they did so by two votes. So, even though they have a victory in passing the legislation out of the House, the victory was by no means sweeping.

And in the midst of all this hoopla, nobody is really certain what the effects of the carbon offsets will be. They do agree on this: the more effective the bill is at limiting carbon emissions, the higher our energy costs will go.

And you can email your thanks to the Big O himself by using this page:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Read the rest...

Alabama Libertarian Party Convention

Well, the LPA convention is over, and it was… quite interesting. I was glad to see that the Chair and Vice-Chair positions were contested, and the competition was spirited.

Mark Bodenhausen, a long-term Libertarian who has been inactive in recent years, was elected as Chairman, and I was elected as Vice-Chairman. Ironically, the first time I served as Vice-Chairman was ALSO with Mark as Chairman. We accomplished quite a lot back then, and it is my sincere hope we can do similarly this time.

The focus in the coming weeks will be, I’m sure, ballot access and how we can run a decent slate of candidates in the 2010 elections.

So for those interested, that’s the news from the Libertarian front.


Read the rest...

Gloomy Outlook Ahead

Ever since the Big O took office, it seems like Democrats have joined together in one large climactic explosion of Liberalism. Proposals for “change” have abounded, and the current “wish-list” of liberal programs is so large that the Democrat party is beginning to creak under the strain of achieving it all.

We continue to hear how “this is the moment” to achieve this or that long-held liberal goal, and how, if it isn’t passed this year, it may never be passed at all. The reason for this is clear and easy to understand. The liberals know that their massive spending orgy will quickly disenchant voters, with the result that they will lose seats during the upcoming 2010 elections. And once they lose those massive majorities, their ability to pass this idiotic legislation disappears. (For an example, the Cap & Trade legislation passed the House with a vote of 219 in favor… one more than the minimum 218 required for passage.)

Do I have any evidence to support this view? Absolutely. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a new report on Friday, saying that the long-term budget outlook is very dark.

The nation's long-term budget outlook has darkened considerably over the past six months, and President Obama's plan to extend an array of tax cuts and other policies adopted during the Bush administration has the potential to "create an explosive fiscal situation," congressional budget analysts reported yesterday.

Essentially, it takes note that the new administration's intentions to massively increase spending and enact new entitlement programs will cause a massive cash shortfall, resulting in either the printing of new money (and guaranteed inflation) or increased borrowing.

The news is not particularly good even if the government were to collect the extra money, primarily because of the rapidly rising cost of Social Security and federal health programs for the elderly and the poor. According to the CBO, the annual gap between spending and revenue would briefly drop below 2 percent of GDP in the next decade before rising to 5.6 percent in 2035, 8.3 percent in 2050, and nearly 18 percent in 2080. But the outlook is much worse if the tax cuts and other policies are extended, the CBO found: Annual deficits would never drop below 4 percent of GDP; they would approach 15 percent by 2035 and surpass 42 percent by 2080.

Already heavily in debt, the nation would be forced to borrow ever more massive sums to keep the government afloat, the CBO warns, with the national debt nearly 200 percent of the overall economy by 2035.

So, what does this mean to our nation, and what should we do about it?

"We're drowning in unprecedented levels of red ink, and there is no plan to fix the situation. Having spent over a decade worrying about budget deficits, I can quite honestly say that things have never looked as bad as they do now," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "We need to be focused on slowing spending and finding better ways to raise revenue, not on cutting taxes and introducing new entitlement programs. We can either make these hard choices now, on our own terms, or we can make them in a panic on the heels of a full-blown fiscal crisis."

In other words, PresBo needs to back off from many of his new entitlement programs and focus on reduced spending. As I have stated repeatedly in recent weeks, it is no longer acceptable to be talking about “reducing the deficit,” we must instead ELIMINATE the deficit and begin paying down the massive national debt. And PresBo’s path of going further into debt is a recipe for national disaster.

Read the rest...

Cap & Trade Passes House

Well, PresBo’s Cap & Tax bill has passed the House. The vote was close, 219 – 212, but that was enough to pass the biggest economic mistake that this country will ever make.

That’s the bad news, but at least we here in Alabama can say we did our part. Thanks in part to a massive influx of phone calls against the bill, the entire Alabama Congressional delegation voted against the bill.

Now it goes to the Senate, and hopefully it will have a rougher time there. We need to lobby our Senators to vote against it… not that I think either would support it.


Read the rest...

Are Democrats Slipping?

When the Democrats won big during the last election, they began to move immediately to implement a LARGE number of reforms and changes. They want to change how we produce energy, provide healthcare, and regulate immigration; they want to change the degree of autonomy enjoyed by private businesses. And MUCH more! Those are just the hot topics being addressed today. In fact, they want to change so much of what has made America great that you have to wonder if they truly believe in the America that the rest of us do.

“They had planned for a busy summer of healthcare and climate change debate, a dozen spending bills, a defense authorization and hearings on President Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) even promised to add a sweeping overhaul of immigration to that list.”

But early signs of reality might be appearing. They face a tough fight on the Cap & Trade legislation in the House today… they may or may not get the votes. It’s that close, despite having a clear and commanding majority in the House.

And Democrats themselves are beginning to doubt their ability to pass all or most of their agenda.

But the revelation that revamping the nation’s healthcare model could greatly exceed $1 trillion over the next 10 years, along with an intra-party debate in the House on climate change legislation, has lawmakers feeling the weight of the packed agenda and sensing the need to narrow the list.

“There is a risk of not doing anything by trying to do too much,” Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said. “I think there is going to be a narrowing-down as time goes on.”

To be sure, not all Democrats agree.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said it would be “irresponsible” not to tackle all the “burning issues” voters charged their representatives with addressing. “When the rubber hits the road, it’s a different thing,” Lautenberg said. “You find out as you get into the details that it can’t carry.”

Of course, many are in self-denial. Despite holding majorities in both the House and Senate, they succumb to the temptation to claim it’s all the Republicans' fault.

“Many Democrats are quick to blame Republican opposition for stalling progress on policy issues, saying the minority refuses to back anything the majority moves.”

I don’t think that’s true. I think that the GOP minority will oppose any liberal agenda item that they would normally disagree with anyway… which is virtually all that’s been in the news lately. The high-profile items are all that way, proposing plans and programs that fiscal conservatives would, by nature, disapprove of.

And even if the House passes it, what does the Senate think about it?

Even though the House seems to have settled its intra-party dispute over climate change, Democratic senators say they are in no rush to take up the issue.

“It’s a very ambitious agenda,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.). “The healthcare debate is much more mature and I’m glad we’re moving first on it.

“I think this energy piece is just going to have to stew a little bit,” she said.

So maybe the honeymoon is over, or close to it. We’ll know after today’s vote on Cap & Tax… but maybe not immediately. Remember that each victory will feed the fiscal concerns of lawmakers, thus making it harder for them to win future fights.

Time will tell.

Read the rest...

Supreme Court: Student Strip Search Illegal

There are several court cases of note wending their way through the court system, and one of them actually got a ruling earlier this week.

The case involved a 13-year-old girl who was accused (by other students) of having ibuprofen. School officials, intent on stopping this incredibly illegal drug (???), searched her clothing and bags. Not finding anything, they suspected she had hidden the ibuprofen inside her underwear… so they strip-searched her. Oh, they told her to hold open the waistband of her underwear while a nurse peered inside, but it’s the same thing.

In my humble opinion, anybody who peers into a student’s underwear for anything other than medical reasons needs to be arrested. Strip searches are occasionally warranted, but only when there is hard evidence that it is necessary and ONLY if there is a solid reason to do so.


The US Supreme Court agrees.

Justice David H. Souter, writing perhaps his final opinion for the court, said that in the search of Savana Redding, now a 19-year-old college student, school officials overreacted to vague accusations that Redding was violating school policy by possessing the ibuprofen, equivalent to two tablets of Advil.

What was missing, Souter wrote, "was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear."

It was reasonable to search the girl's backpack and outer clothes, but Safford Middle School administrators made a "quantum leap" in taking the next step, the opinion said. "The meaning of such a search, and the degradation its subject may reasonably feel, place a search that intrusive in a category of its own demanding its own specific suspicions," Souter wrote.

The decision was 8-1, with Justice Clarence Thomas being the lone dissenter.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter. "Judges are not qualified to second-guess the best manner for maintaining quiet and order in the school environment," he wrote.

He said administrators were only being logical in searching the girl. "Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments," he wrote. "Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school."

On the contrary, Justice Thomas. Our 4th amendment is supposed to PROTECT us from unreasonable AND WARRANTLESS searches. And it is the role of the judiciary to enforce our constitutional protections, not to hide behind lame “we are not qualified to second-guess” excuses. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the vast majority of what the Supreme Court DOES is second-guess SOMEBODY’S decisions and/or actions.

Students DO have Constitutional rights, and those rights may not be abridged by some idiot school official who has a “perfectly good reason” to reach into your daughter’s underpants.

Do you know what’s missing? Criminal charges against the principal and nurse involved. Shouldn’t they be labeled as child molesters and fired, at the very least?

Read the rest...

Text of Cap & Trade Bill

And in case you were wondering, the Cap & Tax bill is over 1,000 pages long... another instance when none of those voting on the bill have actually read it.

We need to fire anybody who votes in favor of a bill that they haven't read.

And in case you're interested in reading the monstrosity, you can find a PDF version of the bill here.


Read the rest...

Before The Cap & Trade Vote

As you know, PresBo’s Cap & trade legislation is up for a vote today. This legislation is an incredibly bad idea that will cost all of us a ton of money, and in all likelihood put our economy on an express elevator to the basement.

And heck, even the EPA’s climate experts doubt climate change, though the EPA has told them to shut up about it.

As to the vote today, at least it looks like Alabama will do our part. All seven members of our Congressional delegation are expected to vote against the legislation today. If this is indicative of the nation as a whole, the legislation may well fail.

Let’s all cross our fingers.

UPDATE: I received an email saying that all members of our delegation would vote no, except for Bright and Griffith, who were undecided. I called their Congressional offices in DC, and both men are planning on voting NO. So, as of this moment, the entire Alabama Congressional delegation is voting NO on PresBo's Cap & Tax bill.


Read the rest...

Does More Money Improve Schools?

We hear it every year, especially during the Legislative session: Our schools need more money to give our children the education they deserve. Accepted by nearly everyone is the assumption that increasing spending on education improves the quality of education.

But is that assumption correct?According to a study of court-ordered funding increases in four states, that assumption is flat-out, dead wrong.

“New Jersey has been wrestling with its education system and court orders to fix it since 1970. There are more than 600 school districts in the state. Thirty-one are known as Abbott districts, named after the court case that resulted in $1.5 billion in additional education spending. (Per-pupil spending in New Jersey exceeded $20,000 last year.) The Abbott districts contain about half the black and Hispanic students in the state. What's the result of all this new spending? The authors write, "The picture we find is a mixed one, with little evidence that the state's black students have progressed much, if at all, relative to black students nationwide." They do note that Hispanic students have made "significant progress," but they don't see a direct connection between spending and achievement.”

I have said this so many times that I have lost count. Spending more money on the same system simply gives us a more expensive education at the same level. If you want improvements in education, make changes in HOW the money is spent, not just in HOW MUCH is spent.

The problem with our education system is the same as the problem with the GOP. Both want to succeed in the future following the same policies laid down by the same leaders. I hate to tell them this, but that is not a recipe for success. In both cases, a leadership change is absolutely essential so that fundamental and necessary changes can be made.

So remember this the next time our politicians start screaming for more money for schools and making extravagant promises and/or threats. More money isn’t a guarantee of improvement. Without a plan to actually improve the education system, we’ll simply be throwing more money away.

Read the rest...

Trouble In Paradise?

As you know, PresBo has a very good relationship with the press. That is, he can be virtually assured of favorable treatment of his policies and announcements (pronouncements?) by the assembled press corps. Some have been complaining that a few reporters are called on repeatedly while others seldom or never get a chance to ask questions, but this hasn’t amounted to much.

But now the first solid crack in their relationship has appeared, and unless PresBo is careful, his honeymoon could be over. You see, he got caught planting reporters with questions during his last presser… and the other reporters aren’t letting go of that.

The situation had been described by Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, who reported Obama's statement, "I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post."

"Obama knew this because White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian," Milbank reported.

"Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row," Milbank continued. "The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world – Iran included – that the American press isn't as free as advertised."

And the Presidential spokesman, Gibbs, took numerous questions on the planted question from reporters. He started defending the practice by saying: “I won't make any apologies for that,” and ended up claiming: “The question wasn't planted. That question wasn't planted.”

Ooops.

So maybe PresBo won't be able to keep getting away with these kinds of shenanigans much longer. Come on, press corps... stop worshipping him and DO YOUR JOBS!

Read the rest...

A Quick Announcement

Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to make a quick announcement. This coming Saturday, June 27, the Libertarian Party of Alabama (LPA) will be holding its 2009 annual convention. During this convention, new officers will be elected to lead the LPA in a positive direction.

I will be running for the office of Vice-Chairman of the LPA as part of a slate of candidates including Dr. Roderick Long as Chairman, Steve Dow as Secretary, and Jim Albea as Treasurer.


The LPA has fallen on hard times in recent years, mainly because of the high ballot access hurdles in place to discourage competition from third party and independent candidates. Alabama has the toughest ballot access laws in the nation, supposedly to guard the fragile voter against the terrible inconvenience of a crowded ballot. Instead, and directly because of the ballot access laws, Alabama suffers from what I call deserted ballots. During the 2006 elections, more than 50% of the legislators running for office HAD NO OPPOSITION during the general election. Fully half of the voters of Alabama had no choice who their legislator would be. And many of those legislators have been unopposed for multiple terms. The longevity winner is Rep James Buskey, who last had a general election opponent in 1982… meaning he has served for 27 years without opposition!

Those ballot access laws have prevented the LPA from achieving statewide ballot access since 2002, when we ran a slate of 60 candidates for offices around the state.

In order to turn the party around, new leadership is needed, and I will be asking for the honor of being part of that leadership team.

If you are a member of the LPA, please consider attending the 2009 LPA Convention on Saturday.

Read the rest...

PresBo Wants A Bipartisan Health Plan?

That’s what he’s said. What he MEANS is that he wants Republicans to support his health care plan.

“Obama on Tuesday dismissed as "not logical" the insurance lobby's assertion that a new government health plan he backs would dismantle the employer-sponsored coverage most Americans now have. Despite harsh words from the president, senators attending an evening meeting in the Capitol with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said the administration was not ready to abandon the search for compromise.”

As a compromise, Republicans are being offered the idea of nonprofit co-ops. Here’s my warning to the GOP on that. Before deciding to back ANY health care proposal, be certain it’s a GOOD plan in and of itself. Because if it’s not, then the Dems will blame YOU for it WHEN the plan is proven to be a failure at containing costs and insuring everybody. Don’t just endorse a plan because it’s “not as bad” as the “government option,” because they’ll blame you when it fails.

Make no mistake, PresBo WANTS that government option.


Obama said he thinks a public health plan would be "an important tool to discipline insurance companies."

Here’s the problem with a government-run insurer. Over time, it will use the power of government to gain an unfair advantage over private insurers. They will price their policies below what the private market can match, use tax dollars to subsidize the insurer, and possibly even pass regulations or laws that favor the government insurer. Private insurers cannot compete with that, and will fail as a result… thus leaving us with what PresBo really wants anyway, a single-payer system.

“In a letter to senators released Tuesday, the two largest industry groups warned in stark terms that a government plan would take over the U.S. health care system. America's Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association also said they didn't believe it was possible to design a government plan that could compete fairly with private companies in a revamped health care market.

"We do not believe that it is possible to create a government plan that could operate on a level playing field," said the insurers' letter, signed by AHIP head Karen Ignagni and Blue Cross CEO Scott Serota. "Regardless of how it is initially structured, a government plan would use its built-in advantages to take over the health insurance market."

Folks, if the Republicans jump on board with this government takeover of health insurance, they will deserve the blame that they get when the rationing starts and things get even worse than they are now.

Read the rest...

More Unintended Consequences

Our Federal Government, under the divine and beneficent leadership of PresBo (may the sun shine on his head), is in the process of taking ever more radical steps on various issues. And, as any intelligent person could tell you, many of those actions will have unintended consequences.

As I noted in my noon post, PresBo (may his goat give sweet milk) is putting limits on what forms and amounts of compensation which can be received by employees of bailout companies. Now we learn that, as predicted by myself and others, the best and brightest are leaving those companies to go elsewhere. This brain drain will hurt the bailout companies. Thank you, PresBo. (Blessed be his name.)

PresBo wants to spend money… oh, how he wants to spend money. He wants to spend money so badly, he’s willing to force a $1.8 trillion deficit on us this year… though he promises to get that deficit down to $900 billion by the end of a decade. If allowed to continue, PresBo’s (may he live forever) plans will double our national debt in 10 years. Think about that… the debt accrued by every previous US President from George Washington to George W. Bush, doubled in just one decade. Ambitious, isn’t he?


And what are the unintended consequences? Well, interest rates on mortgages are rising, which will result in fewer people refinancing and purchasing homes.

“The consequences of this debt are already being felt. In any economy, a limited amount of savings is available for everyone to borrow. The more Washington borrows from that pool to finance its debt, the lower the amount left for small business loans, mortgage loans, car loans or student loans. This is why interest rates are spiking -- and will continue to spike. The result will be less business investment (and therefore less job creation), and an even worse housing market.”

So PresBo’s spending will actually hurt the economy and the housing market.

Gee, thanks again, PresBo. (May the fleas of a thousand camels infest his armpits.)

Read the rest...

My Plan For Salary Controls

Okay, I’ve had it. First PresBo wants to control salaries and benefits earned by Executives of companies taking bailout money. NOW he wants to control salaries and benefits earned by Executives of ANY publicly traded company! This is getting ridiculous, so I have formulated my OWN plan for salary controls.

It’s a fairly simple plan.

Each year, we compare the total budget to the budget deficit. We then calculate what percentage of the budget is deficit spending, and reduce the pay of Congress and the President by the same amount. For example, if the budget is $1 trillion and the deficit is $200 billion, then Congress and the President will receive a 20% pay cut.

Now THAT’S a salary control plan I can get behind!

How about you?






Read the rest...

Voting Rights Act Upheld… Sort Of

I don’t know if anybody else has been following this, but the Supreme Court made an interesting decision on Monday. I’ll give the background and then the decision.

Much of the South is covered under the “Voting Rights Act of 1965,” which requires that any changes to election law or districts be approved by the Feds prior to implementation, because of a past history of racial discrimination. Alabama is one of those states.

Recently, that law was challenged by “officials from a water district near Austin, Texas, who said they should not have to ask for permission from Washington for switching a polling place from a house to a public school.”


The case wound up in the Supreme Court, who ruled on Monday that the Voting Rights Act would remain intact. Though they didn’t invalidate the Act, they DID create a way for cities to be removed from it by “going to court and showing it had not violated any provision of the Voting Rights Act for a decade.”

Well, that’s a LITTLE better, since now cities CAN get out from under the thumb of the Feds. But the process described by the Justices is time-consuming and expensive, and I would have hoped for a better fix.

Still, from some of the comments made by the Justices, the next such case that lands in front of of the Supremes may receive an entirely different reaction.

Personally, I’d like to see the law struck down entirely.

Read the rest...

Obama Wants To Cut Health Care Costs? Really?

As you know, PresBo says he wants to cut health care costs, and the way he wants to do it is by creating a “public option” for health insurance. This means a government-run insurance company that competes with privately-run companies. This is how PresBo wants to bring down health care costs.

Will it work? CAN it work? Well, if history and previous precedent mean anything, then no, it cannot and will not work.

Let’s look at Medicare for an example of how a government-run health care program has reduced costs over time. Another reason to use Medicare as an example is that, according to Tom Daschle, the new program will be “modeled after” Medicare.

A new study published by the Pacific Research Institute “…takes all health-care spending in the United States and subtracts the costs of the two flagship government-run programs, Medicare and Medicaid. It then takes that remaining spending and compares its cost increases over time with Medicare's cost increases over time.”

And the results? Did Medicare costs increase more slowly than private insurance? Well, no, not exactly.

The results are clear: Since 1970 — even without the prescription drug benefit — Medicare's costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector.

Since 1970, the per-patient costs of all health care apart from Medicare and Medicaid have risen from $364 to $7,119, while Medicare's per-patient costs have risen from $368 to $9,634. Medicare's costs have risen $2,511 more per patient.

Okay, you say, maybe the study made assumptions that made this outcome likely? Nope. If anything, the reverse is true.

These conclusions are true despite very generous treatment of Medicare. My study counts Medicare's prescription drug expenditures as part of privately purchased care, rather than as part of Medicare. It counts health care purchased privately by Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries (including Medicare copayments and Medigap insurance) among the costs of private care, without counting its recipients among those receiving private care — thereby magnifying private care's per-person costs. And it doesn't adjust for cost-shifting from Medicare to private entities.

What about other studies showing the reverse?

The New York Times and others have quoted studies claiming that private insurance has failed to contain costs as well as Medicare. Such studies are deeply misleading, for they omit any consideration of out-of-pocket spending, thereby neglecting a major shift in the private health care market.

So the bottom line is that creating a government-run insurance option patterned after Medicare will cause health care costs to increase faster than they would have with only private insurance. Costs will go UP, not down.

Read the rest...

So Much For Bipartisanship

As you know, PresBo has made a big deal out of wanting “bipartisan solutions” to the problems the Administration faces. Of course, he doesn’t REALLY want bipartisan solutions, he just wants the Republicans to support his incredibly liberal agenda. His idea of bipartisanship is that the Republicans support his proposals.

Bipartisanship is more than that. If a proposal is truly bipartisan, it contains enough elements that both sides like for each to support it. PresBo’s proposals just aren’t like that… he continues to parade his “I Won” philosophy and reject any idea that touches on fiscal responsibility.

Now we have the Democrats in Congress determining that since there’s no way to convince Republicans to support the Democrat agenda, the Democrats will just have to go it alone. They have the votes to get it done, right?


Well, maybe not. Some Democrats are expressing concerns that the healthcare plan may not have enough votes to pass.

Better news on healthcare I have not recently heard.

Look, the whole idea of a government-run plan is a bad idea. Private run companies just can’t compete with a government-run entity. Why not? Because the private companies have to be profitable through the business they do. The government-run insurance program can force prices so low that private insurers can’t compete, and then funnel enough taxpayer dollars into it to overcome the losses.

If we create a “government option” insurer, we will eventually end up with that as our ONLY option… in other words, single payer. And that’s a nightmare that I, for one, don’t want to have.

Read the rest...

Public Supports PresBo... Or Does It?

According to a new New York Times/CBS News poll, “Americans overwhelmingly support” an overhaul of the healthcare system. This would appear to indicate wide public support for PresBo’s health care plan.

“The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.”

The actual number in the poll was 72% supporting PresBo’s idea of a “government-option” health care plan.

So that’s it, guys, the battle for public opinion is over… or is it? Let’s look a little closer. It turns out that, looking at the actual data that was released, things may be a little different than the headline would lead you to believe.


You see, most polls ask demographic questions to find out a little bit about the people answering the polls. That way, they can say how many men/women answered in one way, and so forth. In this case, respondents were asked for whom they voted for President in 2008. It turns out that 48% voted for Obama and only 25% voted for McCain. So the survey oversampled Obama supporters by a 2 to 1 margin.

I suppose that’s one way to get a favorable poll result, simply stack the poll with people who agree with how you’d like the survey to come out. All this poll really found out was that Obama supporters support Obama’s healthcare plan. Talk about your no-brainer.

There were some other interesting results. For example, although 48% were dissatisfied with “healthcare in this country,” a whopping 77% were satisfied with “the healthcare you receive.”

Similarly, while only 19% were satisfied with the “cost of health care in this country,” a full 60% were satisfied with “YOUR health care costs.”

And when asked in a series of questions their concerns about what would happen if “the government creates a system of providing health care for all Americans.” 63% were concerned that the quality of their own healthcare would get worse. Additionally, 68% were concerned their own access to medical tests and treatment would be limited, and 53% were concerned they would be forced to switch doctors.

The results are somewhat strange. Even stacked with a majority of left-wingers, the poll shows that people are mostly satisfied with the quality, availability, and cost of their own health care, and fear that quality and availability will decrease with PresBo’s plan. Given that, why the high approval rating for PresBo’s plan? I don’t know. But the poll does show that even LIBERALS are wary of how PresBo’s plan will negatively impact their own health insurance and treatment.

One thing I DO know is that biased polling doesn’t help the public debate much. Maybe the folks over at NYT and CBS should work harder on making sure their polling data isn’t skewed.

Read the rest...

Our Government At Work

As you know, I have been opposing many of PresBo’s policies. At the heart of my opposition is the belief that bigger government means more intrusive government. In fact, bigger government means worse government. The more power we give our government, the more opportunities they will have to do things that are truly deranged.

Take, for example, the current FDA brouhaha over Cheerios.

If you’ll recall, Cheerios is proud of its ability to reduce cholesterol… an ability which is claimed because it is made from whole grain oats. On each box we see the claims:

"Cheerios is clinically proven to reduce cholesterol 4 percent in 6 weeks"

"Cheerios can help reduce the risk of coronary heart disease, by lowering the 'bad' cholesterol."

And those claims seem to really stick in the FDA’s craw, because they are now asserting that those claims make Cheerio’s a drug which must be regulated by the FDA.

"Based on claims made on your product's label, we have determined that your Cheerios Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug because the product is intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease," the FDA letter said. "[Cheerios] may not be legally marketed with the above claims in the United States without an approved new drug application."

Before you jump on me and say the FDA is doing this to force General Mills to remove unsubstantiated claims from the box, let me state that the claims are true. Clinical studies have, indeed, proved the claims on the Cheerio’s box.

Susan Cruzan of the FDA's press office told The Washington Times the FDA is not objecting to the fact that clinical studies do, in fact, find that Cheerios do what General Mills claims. What concerns the FDA, according to Ms. Cruzan, is, "This is a food product, and they do have a health claim." Specifically, the agency objects to the preciseness of the claims, which she says would make the product classified as a drug. General Mills "could say 'heart disease,' but they are being specific and saying 'coronary heart disease,' " she explains.

Great. So now, before our children can have a morning helping of Cheerios (as opposed to a less healthy option like Captain Crunch or Cocoa Puffs), we have to visit a doctor and get a prescription!

This is crazy, and a perfect illustration of my point. Think about what is happening here. The FDA wants to classify Cheerios as a drug because the box contains accurate and truthful information!

Are you SURE we need bigger government?


Read the rest...

New PresBo Plan

[The author of this piece has employed satire to make a point.]

I was looking around the White House website today, and you will NOT believe this!

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
---------------------------------------------------------------
For Immediate Release June 21, 2009

Statement from the President on Democracy

I have noticed some very unfortunate historical trends for Democracy around the world, most recently in Iran when violent protests and suppressions followed what should have been an orderly exercise of the Democratic electoral process. This is cause for grave concern, as Democratic traditions are the bulwarks of our political process. If the process of democratic elections is eroding, we must take immediate steps to protect them so that this great nation may continue on its historic path of freedom and liberty for all.

Accordingly, I have crafted a plan patterned after my recently proposed Financial Regulatory Reform Plan. It is a good plan, and we need it desperately. I urge Congress to set aside partisan differences and pass this legislation immediately, or even sooner. The future of our Democracy may be at stake, and it is vital that this legislation become law prior to the 2010 election cycle.

I will provide a brief outline of my Democratic Electoral Process Reform Plan.

One very critical component of our system is that each and every person can vote. However, we rarely see more than 40% - 50% of the registered voters actually casting a vote. This pool of non-voting voters could easily form the nucleus for violent protests and demonstrations following the pattern in Iran. Therefore I today appoint a Czar of Electoral Participation, to be in charge of increasing voter participation at the polls. Each non-voter shall be assigned a Voting Supervisor to make certain they cast their vote in the next scheduled election. In this way, we preserve and defend our democratic traditions.

Another critical component of our system is that each voter casts his vote wisely. Sadly, this is often not the case. Therefore, I will issue an executive order granting to the official Voting Supervisors the authority to make certain not only that non-voting voters cast votes in future elections, but also that ALL voters cast their votes for the correct candidates. The Czar of Electoral Participation will be responsible for determining the correct candidates, the compliance of all voters will be monitored, and criminal penalties dealt out to violators.

My fellow Americans, these two steps are vital to our country and must be passed without delay. Only in this way can we preserve and defend our Democratic traditions.


Read the rest...

PresBo’s Financial Regulatory Reform Plan

So, PresBo has finally unveiled his plan to reform the financial regulatory system. Predictably, it calls for greater involvement and control by the Federal Government, and gives them a vastly expanded ability to bailout and/or seize any company deemed “too big to fail.”

His plan, if adopted, will fundamentally change the nature of our financial system and economy. The underlying concerns and assumptions are clear, and they are made clearer by considering other ways that his administration has dealt with the consequences of competition -- particularly the faux bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler and the impending change in antitrust policy. Although the president said in his speech that he supports free markets, these initiatives confirm that the administration fears the "creative destruction" that free markets produce, preferring stability over innovation, competition and change.

According to the administration white paper circulated prior to the president's speech, the Federal Reserve would be authorized to create a special regulatory regime -- including requirements for capital, leverage and liquidity -- for any firm "whose combination of size, leverage, and interconnectedness could pose a threat to financial stability if it failed." In addition, if a large financial firm is failing, the Treasury is to be given the power -- in lieu of bankruptcy -- to appoint a conservator or receiver to "stabilize" it.

Designating particular financial firms for this kind of special regulatory treatment clearly signals to the markets that these institutions are too big to fail. It will reduce the perceived risk of lending to them, enabling them to raise funds at lower cost than their smaller competitors.

But the Presbo plan fails because it takes aim at politically convenient targets and ignores the real flaws in the system.

Instead of putting an end to bank bailouts, the plan makes bailouts a permanent feature of our regulatory landscape. In fact, it extends the possibility of taxpayer-funded bailouts to any company choosing to become a financial-holding company. This will likely include every large insurer, as well as major consumer-finance companies like GMAC.

Of course, the administration tells us that bailouts won't be needed -- because the same regulators who missed the signs of the current crisis will get added powers to prevent the next one.

Forbes magazine has published “Ten Thoughts” about PresBo’s plan… essentially, ten reasons it’s a bad idea and not going to fix the world.

And what does Wall Street think about this plan? Wall Street doesn’t think it’ll work.

But banks and other Wall Street firms that earn billions of dollars on consumer financial products quickly attacked the proposal, setting the stage for what is likely to be a hard-fought legislative battle."We intend to take our case to Congress to explain why we believe adding new layers to a broken regulatory system is not the answer," said David Hirschmann, president of the Center for Capital Markets at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

PresBo’s plan will NOT work to “fix” the system. It will, however, turn over a vast amount of control of our free market system to the Federal Government… and a free market controlled by anybody is not a free market anymore. It’s a government-controlled market, and that won’t be good for anybody.

Read the rest...

Alabama’s Unemployment Up In May

As everybody knows, national unemployment figures for May jumped to 9.4%... FAR above the 8% Presbo predicted as a maximum if we passed his stimulus bill. How does Alabama and the surrounding area compare? Not well. A year ago, Alabama’s unemployment rate was at 4.7%. That rate has now more than doubled, jumping to 9.8% in May... higher than the national average. The lowest unemployment figures in the state were enjoyed by Shelby County (6.6%), Madison County(6.9%), and Coffee County (7.4%). The highest were Wilcox (23.9%), Lowndes (18.0%), and Dallas (17.7%).

Some surrounding states did better, some worse. We’re still doing better than Florida (10.2%) and Tennessee (10.7%), but Mississippi (9.6%) and Georgia (9.7%) now have unemployment rates lower than ours.

All in all, unemployment rates rose in 48 states across the nation. Michigan tops the list with 14.1%, but California isn’t THAT far behind with 11.5%. the two states whose rates did NOT increase were Nebraska, which enjoyed a slight dip, and Vermont, whose rate didn't change from that recorded in April.

And meanwhile, Congress is considering tax hikes to pay for a universal health care plan. Yes, that should help reduce unemployment. (sarcasm alert)

For those who predict a quick turnaround and robust recovery, such as PresBo, I'd like to point out that the numbers aren’t reflecting this.


Read the rest...

Government Care Works Good… Honest!

When PresBo spoke to the AMA on Monday, he made an amazing statement. PresBo said that in some countries a single-payer health care system “works pretty well.”

“Let me also say that—let me also address an illegitimate concern that’s being put forward by those who are claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan Horse for a single-payer system. I’ll be honest, there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well."

My first response to that was “Bull.” My second response was “Yeah? Name three!” Apparently, I wasn’t the only person who was wondering.

“I don’t know exactly the countries. I think if you talk to the people in the countries that have that system, they think their health care is pretty good,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told CNSNews.com Wednesday during the daily press briefing.

This is pretty basic stuff. If you make a claim of fact, such as that there are some countries where government health care works well, you must be prepared to back it up. The very least we can expect is a list of countries whose health care system PresBo thinks has worked “pretty well.”

Asked again if he knew specifically which countries, Gibbs replied: “I assume Canada, Britain, maybe France. I don’t know the exact countries, but again, I don’t think the president is going way out on a limb that some people in other countries have a health care system that they like. Just as some Americans like the health care system that they have.”

Canada? Is he kidding? CANADA??? With their long waiting lines and rationed care?

“In Canada, the average wait for a 65-year-old man to get a hip replacement is six months, according to the Freedom Works Foundation. The average wait time in a Canadian emergency room is 16 hours and 18 minutes. Also, “the average cancer test and radiation treatment cycles vary between 6 to 8 weeks,” the foundation reported.”

To me, this sounds like another baseless claim that PresBo is using to get his plan passed.

Meanwhile, public support for the plan is falling as the public learns more about exactly how much the plan will cost. And seniors, who probably use Medicare and therefore don’t benefit from the new law, are beginning to turn away from PresBo’s plan.

Read the rest...

Health Care, Obama Style

The Kennedy health care reform bill, titled “The Affordable Health Choices Act,” is out and has been reviewed by the Wall Street Journal. You won’t be happy with what they found from reading the actual text of the bill.

Remember when PresBo claimed that "you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves?" He promised that last September, and again to the AMA last Monday. Since Congress has their choice of the best insurance plans in the nation, that’s some promise.

Members of Congress "enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country," according to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. They "can choose from among consumer-driven and high deductible plans that offer catastrophic risk protection with higher deductibles, health saving/reimbursable accounts and lower premiums, or fee-for-service (FFS) plans, and their preferred provider organizations (PPO), or health maintenance organizations (HMO)."

So is this claim from PresBo an accurate representation of what’s actually in the bill? No, it’s not.

“This legislation… will push Americans into stingy insurance plans with tight, HMO-style controls. It specifically exempts members of Congress (along with federal employees; the exemptions are in section 3116).”

Whoopsie. Was PresBo caught in a lie, or does he honestly not know what’s in the legislation that he claims is vital to our nation?

Instead, if you don't enroll in a "qualified" health plan and submit proof of enrollment to the federal government, you'll be tracked down and fined (sections 3101 and 6055).

For a health plan to count as "qualified," it has to meet all the restrictions listed in the legislation and whatever criteria the Secretary of Health and Human Services imposes after the bill becomes law. You may think you're in a "qualified" plan, but the language suggests that only plans with managed-care controls such as the "medical home" will meet the definition (sections 3101 and 2707).

"Medical home" is this decade's version of HMO-style insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office, with a primary-care provider to manage your access to costly services such as visits to specialists and diagnostic tests. Medical home providers in "qualified" plans, states the Kennedy bill, will have a "payment structure" based on "incentives" rather than payments for each doctor visit or procedure (section 3101).

These requirements are reminiscent of the unpopular controls HMOs imposed two decades ago that caused public outrage and led to state laws reining in abuses.

The president has promised that if you like your plan you can keep it. Mr. Kennedy's bill says that too. It's doubletalk, as the consequences of nonenrollment make clear. How big a fine will you face? The bill doesn't specify or set a limit. It says the fine will be enough to "accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage" (section 161).

If legislation similar to the Kennedy bill lands on Mr. Obama's desk, he has an obligation to keep his promises to the American people and veto it. And whatever health-insurance law is passed should apply to members of Congress. If it isn't good enough for them, it shouldn't be imposed on the rest of us.

Amen. This is yet another reason why we should be opposing this so-called “health care reform” bill with every resource at our disposal. Come on, people, wake up… THIS IS A BAD BILL!

Read the rest...

Jubilee CityFest Lost Money… Again

Montgomery’s annual Giant Block Party, aka Jubilee CityFest, has come and gone. Earlier, I questioned if it was right for the city to funnel taxpayer dollars into CityFest. I also wondered how much money they would need THIS year. Now that the party is over, we can look at it and see.

By their standards, CityFest did phenomenally well, needing to use only $27,000 of their $60,000 nest-egg. This compares VERY well with their previous two years, when the City had to donate in excess of $300,000 each year. So they’re getting better.

Still, they continue to operate the festival AT A LOSS, despite sincere and significant attempts to control costs. The good news is that the City of Montgomery won’t have to spend taxpayer dollars to bail out the CityFest… again. The bad news is that they still haven’t figured out how to run the thing at a profit. If nothing else, The CityFest MUST take in enough money to pay for its expenses, or else it’s a financial failure.

So either figure it out, guys, or give up.


Read the rest...

PresBo's Innacurate Stimulus Claim

When PresBo was pushing his so-called “stimulus” package, he claimed that it was critically needed to keep unemployment from rising. Without the stimulus, unemployment would top out at 9%, he said, while with it he could hold unemployment to 8% and start reducing the rate earlier.

So, how’d he do?



Not so good, I’d say. It looks like WITH the stimulus the unemployment rate has already risen far past what PresBo predicted if it didn’t pass. How did this happen?According to Vice President Biden, the reason they are so far wrong is that they weren’t predicting, they were just guessing.

Doesn’t it make you sleep better at night to know that our President’s new administration is just guessing at what to do and what the effects will be?

Boy, am I relieved.


Read the rest...

CBO Criticizes Health Care Plan

The Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan budget-estimating agency of the Federal Government, has issued three reports on the proposed Healthcare legislation. Not surprisingly to those who have examined the issue (though not the bill: it hasn’t all been written yet), none of those reports were good news for PresBo. And, interestingly, all three reports were released this week within a 24-hour period.

The first report, I covered earlier. Basically, it says that the health care proposal would cost more than PresBo and Congress estimate and not accomplish anywhere near what they claim it will.

“The CBO estimated that if the bill becomes a law, it would cause “a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion” from 2010 to 2019. But according to the agency, the bill would still leave 37 million Americans uninsured by 2019. President Barack Obama and congressional allies have pledged to cover the uninsured, while adding nothing to future federal budget deficits. So the CBO analysis has greatly rankled reform advocates.”

The second report was actually a letter to Rep David Camp, R-Mich, the senior Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, and it dealt with an estimated $2 trillion in cost savings by the private sector.

“It was a reminder from CBO that if Obama and Congress intend to redesign health insurance in a way that doesn't add to the federal deficit, they can’t rely primarily on the private sector. “Instead, they will have to do it themselves by curbing the spending that the federal government can control, such as Medicare, which costs $500 billion a year and is growing at a rate of 7 percent annually.

“The CBO also points out that there is a difference between total national health spending, which amounted to $2.2 trillion — or 16 percent of the gross domestic product in 2007 — and government spending on health care, which is about $1 trillion of that national total.”

In other words, the government can’t take reductions in costs from the private sector and tout them as reductions in government spending on healthcare. Reductions in health care costs for us doesn't mean the government is spending less.

The third report was a letter to Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and the ranking Republican on the panel, New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg. This letter basically said that “the savings from efficiency steps, like adopting the cost-effective treatments from the best hospitals nationwide, were not knowable in the short run.”

“Obama’s hope is that an overhaul of health care would reduce federal spending on health care, while improving people’s health. The CBO is reminding Congress of the gap between that hope and actual accomplishment; a deficit-neutral bill may require a lot of revenue through tax increases.”

So, what impact does this have on the healthcare debate?

“So even before its formal cost estimate of the entire health insurance bill, the CBO has already gotten the debate off to a daunting start for would-be reformers. Savings may be there eventually, but they may not show up in the 10-year budget window that the CBO uses to do its estimates.”

So beware of the claims from Democrats about budget-neutral legislation solving all problems… it just ain’t so.


Read the rest...

A Point Well Made?

I have been criticized in the past for stating that only rational, informed voters should cast votes in elections. I understand the arguments against me on this one, but here’s a question.

Do you feel comfortable knowing that this woman will vote in future elections? Are you satisfied with her ability to rationally deal with situations?





Here’s your chance to tell me how you feel about this.






Read the rest...

New Poll Should Worry PresBo

When I find interesting poll numbers I report them, even though sometimes I take heat because of the perceived bias of some polling companies. In that tradition, let’s look at the latest NBC/WSJ poll.

Among other things, this new poll by NBC found that:

- 70% have serious reservations about the government ownership of GM

- 60% say it’s more important to keep deficit down than to stimulate the economy

- 46% of independents support PresBo, down from 60% in April

The poll wasn’t all roses for those who oppose PresBo’s policies. For example, 75% believe a “public option” is important to have. It’s been my contention that many employers will drop their private insurance and switch to the government plan, thus resulting in a lower quality of health care for a lot of people. According to the poll, 47% hold the same view.

There’s quite a bit in here to worry PresBo, not to mention give hope to those of us fighting these battles.

Update: Here is a New York Times/CBS News poll that shows similar results. His personal approval rating is high, but the approval ratings for his proposals are far lower.

Read the rest...

Dirty Tricks On Capitol Hill

Around 6:30 PM last night, the US House of Representatives finished voting on an emergency war funding bill. They adjourned with the official word that no more votes would be taken that night, and most of the Congressmen went home. The ones that stayed were planning on slogging through a slate of 127 amendments to the annual Commerce, Justice, Science spending bill. Some lawmakers would stick around to debate, but there would be no votes until Wednesday.

That changed at 8:21 PM, when absent Congressmen were paged to return for a procedural vote to “streamline” the amendment process.

“Who’s bright idea was this?” asked an annoyed Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC) to no one in particular as he walked back inside the Capitol. The “bright idea” was the brainchild of Shuler’s own party leadership. Democrats believed Republicans were taking advantage of them by chewing up too much time on amendments. So Democrats called for the vote to short-circuit the Republicans and design a new plan for handling the package on the House floor.

What prompted them to do this?

“House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) argued it took more than 20 minutes to consider one of the first amendments, offered by Rep. Aaron Shock (R-IL). If you multiply that by 127, you come up with a pretty high number,” Hoyer said, indicating Democrats were concerned they’d be here much of the night and still not complete the bill.”

Republicans had a different point of view.

“What sticks with us, and not very well, is your decision to cut off debate on page two, line seven of the very first debate,” retorted House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA). “It is hard for us to accept that 30 minutes into the debate, that’s where you drew the line.”

My opinion is that a 20-minute debate on an amendment isn’t necessarily sufficient, depending upon the size of the amendment… ESPECIALLY considering the fact that there are over 400 members of Congress who are involved in the debate. It seems to me that debate on an issue should go until the relevant issues are debated, and not be arbitrarily cut off after a specified time. Rushing a bill just increases the chances that Congress will pass a bad bill.

And did the Democrats’ ploy work?

“Finally at 9:01 pm, majority Democrats closed the vote. They consumed more than twice the time it usually takes to hold a vote as Democrats prevailed over Republicans, 179 to 124. But that’s only 303 members out of what is currently a 434 member House. That meant 131 members didn’t get the message. Or didn’t bother to come back.”

I know things like this happen periodically, and that both sides are guilty. That doesn’t mean we should stop complaining about it when it DOES happen.

The bottom line is that the Democrats decided to steamroller over their minority opposition to achieve a desired goal. And if you think that’s even REMOTELY a good idea, you must not support our current form of government.

Read the rest...

More "Healthcare Reform" In The News

Yes, PresBo’s push for “Healthcare Reform” seems to have become his central theme for the moment. I’ve been covering it extensively in the past few days, and I will continue to do so as additional news items appear.

For example, we have Harry Reid contradicting PresBo and saying that bipartisanship isn’t important… what is more important is for the Democrats to get their plan passed.

“As important as bipartisanship is – and it is very important – it’s not as important as helping the millions of Americans that have no health insurance.”

Folks, they don’t CARE about bipartisanship. They’d love to get some Republicans on board so they could boast of bipartisanship, but if not they don’t care enough to actually change their intended legislation. And THAT’S how you get bipartisan support, by crafting a bill containing enough elements that can be supported by Democrats AND Republicans. You don’t propose a partisan bill and then blame the other side for not signing on to it. Well, you do if you have an ego the size of Mount Rushmore.


When the Republicans DO weigh in with a proposal or two, they are quickly shot down by the Democrat majority. Remember the stimulus bill provision that spends $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research? Republicans have introduced legislation that will stop PresBo from using the results of this research to ration health care.

“We feel it is necessary to introduce this bill to make it crystal clear that the government should not be funding research which is then going to be used in one way or another to ration health care for Americans, to decide what diagnostics or treatments or prescriptions or care can be allowed under any kind of federal program,” Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said at a briefing with reporters Monday.

And HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius says that the health insurance industry will not be able to defeat the “public option” that PresBo says must be part of his massive intrusion into health ca… excuse me, I mean part of his health care solution.

"I think there is a lot of understanding that the private market has really failed to provide affordable coverage to Americans," Sebelius said. The industry has had "a lot of opportunities" to get rid of coverage restrictions and other unpopular policies, Sebelius said, and really "hasn't served Americans very well."

Oh, I don’t know. I don’t have any major complaints for myself, you know. And I know MANY others who are also satisfied with their health insurance. It seems to me that the “health insurance industry” has done a pretty good job, overall, for most Americans.

"I think they understand there's a lot of momentum both in the House and in the Senate for something to pass, and they'd much rather be inside the room, having those discussions, and helping to shape it as much to their liking as they possibly can," she said.

Is that what we’re reduced to, begging at the feet of our rulers?

Fortunately, the health insurance industry isn’t alone in opposing this new healthcare initiative. The US Chamber of Commerce has joined the fight.

“In the bill’s current configuration, the Chamber will oppose the ‘Affordable Health Choices Act' unless several key provisions are significantly changed,” says the letter, signed by Chamber Executive Vice President of Government Affairs Bruce Josten.

And apparently, Chamber opposition could be key to the bill’s defeat.

“A rejection by the powerful and influential big-business group may not come as a surprise, but opposition by the Chamber would signal an intensification of the political and lobbying battle over healthcare reform. Were the Chamber to tag the bill as a “key vote,” lawmakers who support it would also risk being branded as anti-business.”

And finally, PresBo has decided to launch a major campaign during which he will push hard to convince Americans to support this anti-American bill. The televised Obamagasm will be broadcast from the White House by… the “impartial reporter of fact” ABC news.

“The media ethics furor stems from ABC News' announcement that next week the network will devote hours of news coverage to the president's plan, televise a primetime "town hall" discussion on the topic called "Questions for the President: Prescription for America" and anchor its nightly "World News" program from inside the White House. ”

I thought TV News was supposed to REPORT the news, not help to shape it into a form more pleasing to their eye. Silly me.

"This 'special' will feature Obama government officials promoting the president's proposal for government health care. No opposing views are allowed on the program," Hedgecock wrote in a statement. "For ABC News to present only the Obama government side of this important issue would betray the public interest in a free press."

No wonder 56% of the American public think that Internet news is more reliable than TV or newspaper news.

Read the rest...