Antichrist Nonsense

I like to visit WorldNetDaily at least once a day, because they often have good stuff there. Of course, you have to bypass the birther stuff and the occasional nonsense. But THIS little piece of nonsense knocked me for a loop, it was so ridiculous.

Apparently, somebody decided to do a little linguistic research, and discovered that Barack Obama might have been named in scripture as the antichrist.

No, I’m not kidding. The thing is laughable. Of course, I have often observed that you can prove almost anything with scripture and statistics, so…

His 4-minute video focuses on the direct quote: "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." (Luke 10:18)

"When I started doing a little research, I found the Greek word for 'lightning' is 'astrape', and the Hebrew equivalent is 'Baraq,'" said YouTube contributor "ppsimmons," a self-described Christian with a theological education and many years in the ministry, who spoke to WND under condition of anonymity. "I thought that was fascinating."

As he continued looking into the rest of the words in the phrase, he focused on "heaven," and found that it can refer not just to God's dwelling place, but also "the heights" or "high places."

He then recalled Isaiah 14:14, where Lucifer, another name for Satan, is quoted as saying, "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

"I wondered what the word 'heights' is," said ppsimmons, "and I looked it up in the dictionary, and it's 'Bamah.'"

Thus, on the video, the announcer notes, "If spoken by a Jewish rabbi today, influenced by the poetry of Isaiah, He (Jesus) would say these words in Hebrew ... 'I saw Satan as Baraq Ubamah.'"

So there you have it. I guess we can all go home and have nightmares, now, or something.

Honestly, some people will believe ANYTHING.

Read the rest...

Congressman Bright Opposes Cap & Trade, Supports Gun Rights

This is part 2 of my report on Congressman Bright’s town hall telephone call last night. During the call, Bright was asked questions on several topics and responded to those questions.

When asked about gun rights, Bright responded: “I believe in the second amendment of our constitution and the right of our citizens to bear arms, or whatever weapon or gun that they so choose to protect themselves and their family.”

When asked his thoughts on alternative energy, he responded: “I am aware that If we don’t do something we’ll be right back in the same shape as back when we had $4 per gallon gasoline.”

“HR1835 is a bill that helps expand investment into developing ways to use natural gas. I am a co-sponsor for that bill.”

“I support pursuing nuclear energy. It’s probably the cleanest source of energy that we can use right now.”


On Cap & Trade, he said: “We [Blue Dogs] have problems with cap & trade, which I voted against, and I continue to have problems with the health care plans.”

“I want something that will work, not something based on theories that have not been lucidly decided, such as global warming.”

During a question on government spending, a caller said something like “From you’re voting record, you’re obviously a closet Republican.” Bright interrupted him at that point to make this statement: “I'm not a democrat or republican, I am an American first and foremost. As long as I stand here in our nation’s capital, as long as I am here as a congressman, I will be here as an American first and foremost.”

When asked about his plan to reduce spending, Bright responded: “We passed Paygo legislation earlier this week. It requires the budget to be balanced over a period of time. With this legislation, we can get this federal budget under control.”

So, those are my notes. It was a good call, and I liked many of the answers that Congressman Bright gave.

Read the rest...

Congressman Bobby Bright Opposes Current Health Care Plans

Today I get to play the unaccustomed role of reporter. Congressman Bobby Bright has been holding numerous “telephone town hall meetings,” and last night was the sixth. I’m not sure how people are selected, but I received a call on Wednesday warning me of the meeting on Thursday. If I wanted to take part, it said, just answer the phone on Thursday and stay on the line. That way, I suppose, I don’t have to pay anything for the call.

I’m not sure I like spending taxpayer dollars that way, but as it’s on a par with franking (sending letters to constituents without paying postage) I won’t make an issue of it. Plus, it IS a good way to hear from constituents.

I received the phone call last night around 7:00 PM central time, and decided to stay on the line and listen. Bright’s assistant came on the line and asked if anybody had questions to ask him. I signaled a question, told them my question was about health care and the Blue Dogs, and was told I would be allowed to ask the question. By the way, I took notes as fast as I could, but that’s not really my strength. So the quotes provided here are approximations only.

Congressman Bright made an opening statement which pretty much answered my question, so I modified it to elicit information he hadn’t included.


In his opening statement, Bright talked about the House Cap & Trade and health care bills. He noted that he opposed the Cap & Trade bill and voted against it. He stated that he opposes the House health care bill, and thinks that even the deal negotiated in the Energy & Commerce committee by four blue dogs is not a good one. He pledged to vote against it as it stands.

He called the original health care plan “astronomical, something that no-one with reasonable economic sense could say was something to be good for our economy.”

On the health care plans in the House, he said, “We’re far away from what I can support. It [the current plan] still doesn’t meet my criteria of a solid plan for health care for our nation.”

Though he said constituent opinion isn’t the ONLY criteria he considers, he said that “Calls coming in from constituents are 10 to 1 against.”

When asked about the “public option” that the liberal leadership wants so badly, Bright responded simply. “The federal option would compete with private insurance companies and probably put quite a few of them out of business. I will not support a public option.”

His bottom line on health care reform was this: "It must be a market-driven plan that will reduce costs, and it must not be totally dependent upon the Federal government."

To summarize, Congressman Bright says he will not support a public option and he plans to vote against the bill as it currently stands. Even the deal reached by four blue dogs in the E&C Committee is not up to his standards.

Health care was the most popular topic and most people were interested in that one subject. In order to keep this from getting too long, I will cover the other topics discussed in the call in another post later today.

Read the rest...

Pelosi Says Insurance Companies Are Immoral Villains

Well. It took a while, but the Queen of the House finally aimed the liberal cannons precisely where they think MOST of our countries problems come from: private enterprise. In this case, she says that private insurance companies are immoral villains and, of course, ARE the problem.

"They are the villains in this. They have been part of the problem in a major way," Pelosi said of the insurance industry after her weekly press conference. "It's almost immoral, what they are doing," she said, referring to industry lobbying against a public insurance plan option. "Of course, they've been immoral all along. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening, and the public has to know about it."

The current system works so well for insurers that they don't even want subsidies, Pelosi claimed. "They've had a good thing going for a long time at the expense of the American people and the health of our country," she said, adding that it will be tough to keep them from getting their way. "This is the fight of our lives."

Pelosi referred to the health insurance industry's campaign against reform -- specifically, the public option -- as "carpet bombing" and "shock and awe" during the press conference.

The amount of vitriol and biased viewpoints in this diatribe is stunning. Take, for example, this little gem:

“The current system works so well for insurers that they don't even want subsidies, Pelosi claimed.”

Isn’t that the way things are SUPPOSED to work? Is she really saying that a successful business should WANT to be bound to government decree by accepting subsidies? And that if they don’t, then they’re obviously exploiting consumers?

Hey, Pelosi’s doctor… if you’re listening, could you ramp down her meds a little? She’s clearly overdosing on SOMEthing.

For liberals, the villains are ALWAYS individuals and private enterprise. We’re the dragon, you see. And government is always St. George, riding in on a white charger to slay us and save the world. That’s their world-view. It’s twisted… but that’s it.

Read the rest...

No Benefits To Organic Food

This is one of my pet peeves. I've lost count of how many times I’ve seen pricey “organic” food and wondered why I’d pay extra for it. Really, you mean an apple is somehow NOT organic? But we can, we can buy organic apples! Huh.

I cannot tell you how many times my daughter has brought this up. But that's okay, she's an adult now and has her own opinions.

Well, now comes a study from the UK showing that organic food is just hype.

Organic food gives no health benefits to consumers, according to research for the Food Standards Agency published today.

Shoppers pay more for organic fruit, vegetables, chicken, beef and milk but the food gives no nutritional enhancement to people’s diet.

The watchdog stopped short of advising consumers that buying organic produce was a waste of money but its message was clear: choosing to eat organic food will make no important difference to a person’s overall health. Eating a healthy balanced diet is the only important thing, the report concluded.

So, buy the organic stuff if you want to, but maybe now I won’t have to get self-righteous lectures about pesticides and the purity of organic foods.

Here’s hoping.


Read the rest...

Obama’s Approval At Record Low… And Dropping

PresBo’s Presidential Approval Index has dropped to its lowest level yet, -12. Overall 51% disapprove of his job performance and 48% approve.



You can find these and more poll results at the following link:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Read the rest...

Republicans Finally Unveil Health Care Plan

The Republicans finally got going and introduced their own health care legislation. Below is an excerpt from their public announcement that will tell you what their talking points are. I’ll have to look at the bill to determine if it matches their talking points.

To build support, the president continues to hang his hat on a false choice, asserting that Americans are doomed to either the status quo or a government takeover of health care. Yet there is a third way that puts patients in charge. We can achieve reform that lowers costs and ensures the highest quality of care without handing over personal medical decisions to unaccountable bureaucrats.

Thursday, the Republican Study Committee has introduced legislation to positively reform our health system. The Empower Patients First Act relies on the principle that, by increasing patients’ control over their health decisions, we will make coverage more affordable, accessible and responsive, while offering more choices and the highest-quality care.

The bill seeks to achieve universal coverage by ensuring there is no financial reason to go without health insurance. By offering responsible tax incentives, patients will be empowered to purchase the care that best fits their needs.

The legislation also moves ownership of health plans from a third party to patients. When insurers are forced to be responsive to individuals, we will see the industry move to a more patient-centered model we should all seek.

Further, the bill provides for robust pooling mechanisms so patients may unite with the purchasing power of millions. This will lower costs for Americans while ensuring those with pre-existing conditions have a market in which to purchase affordable care.

As cost continues to be a sticking point in reform, the Empower Patients First Act tackles other drivers of health costs by breaking down barriers that outlaw the purchase of health care across state lines and by providing meaningful liability reform. With the creation of new health courts that take into consideration the expert opinions of medical specialty societies — those who actually know what caring for patients is like — we will see a dramatic drop in the costly practice of defensive medicine.

Finally, with federal deficits spiraling out of control, our legislation is paid for. By requiring a 1 percent annual step-down in discretionary spending, plus other efficiencies, we tell Americans that providing access to quality, affordable health care should be a priority in our budget, not just one more thing added to the deficit.

So, that is their plan… or at least what they claim it is. (Here is a news article summarizing the plan.) Assuming their talking points match the bill itself, which would you prefer?

Read the rest...

Have The Blue Dogs Been Betrayed?

As I wrote earlier today, the Blue Dogs struck a deal with Waxman that included several provisions unpopular with the liberal wing of the party. In particular, the liberals are upset with the “weakened public option.”

Here’s an aspect I want to point out, and that should be pointed out to the Blue Dogs RIGHT NOW! In order to appease the liberals who are opposed to the “weakened public option,” the Democrat leadership told liberals that they could change the “public option” provision back.

During her afternoon meeting with the liberals, Pelosi and her team downplayed the importance of the Blue Dog deal, a sharp contrast to how Democratic leaders were playing it in the media — as “a big breakthrough,” according to Pelosi lieutenant Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

“Miller told them that the Energy and Commerce bill was only one of three health care bills passed by the House — and that it was the only one that has a public option plan we don’t like,” said a person who was at the meeting.

“He said they would have plenty of opportunities to change it back,” said the source, who added that members left the meeting still agitated but “somewhat reassured.”

But the Blue Dogs negotiated in good faith. Pelosi trumpeted the deal to the media as a breakthrough, but privately is laying plans to throw the Blue Dog concessions out the window to placate the liberal majority of her party. Isn’t that a betrayal of the Blue Dogs?

Is this how the Democrat leadership conducts business: cut a deal to move legislation forward and then renege on it to get it passed? How long will the Blue Dogs continue to support their own leadership when they are treated this way?

I believe we should make sure NOW that the Blue Dogs know they are being actively betrayed by their own party leadership. Below are the names of all seven Blue Dogs in question, and I suggest you call the Capitol switchboard (202-224-3121) to let them know what is going on.

John Barrow, GA (12)
Bart Gordon, TN (05)
Baron Hill, IN (09)
Jim Matheson, UT (02)
Charlie Melancon, LA (03)
Mike Ross, AR (04)
Zack Space, OH (18)

Let’s go, people!

UPDATE: Here's an article looking at the process, and people involved admit it is likely that some or all of the Blue Dog concessions will be reconciled away.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/clyburn-absolutely-no-idea-if-concessions-to-blue-dogs-will-survive-that-just-aint-the-way-the-world.html

Read the rest...

Blue Dog Compromise: Liberals Hate It

As I wrote late yesterday, the Blue Dogs struck a deal with committee chairman Waxman. I also wondered yesterday if their deal would survive liberals in the House. Jamie Dupree does a good job of looking at the changes that the Blue Dogs managed to put into the bill.

One provision addresses the point at which businesses would be exempted from rules that would require them to provide health insurance to their employees.

The original bill set that limit at $250,000 in payroll for a year; this deal doubles that to $500,000. Anything over that amount, and you would have to pay penalties for not buying your workers health insurance.

The bill also changes how the penalty for that is calculated, as it would be phased in between $500,000 and $750,000. Above that, it would be the full 8 percent of a worker's salary.

One area of agreement that has riled up liberals is on the public insurance option. While the bill did not restrict that government option, it does give states the right to set up health care cooperatives, which are at the center of bipartisan efforts in the Senate.

Cooperatives are owned and operated by their members, and are non-profits, leaving more money for health care coverage.

The Co-op idea is fiercely opposed by more liberal lawmakers, one reason why so many of them want no part of the deal that's being worked out by six Senators, three from each party.

Other changes include a plan that would allow the poor to get subsidies to help them buy insurance after spending 12 percent of their income on premiums. That figure is 11 percent in the current Democratic bill.

Another provision that's sure to prove controversial is on an expanded Medicaid program. It would shift more of the costs to the states, something Governors of both parties say is ridiculous, given the very difficult economic times they are encountering.

Finally, doctors and other medical providers could negotiate payment rates with the federal government, instead of having those rates tied to Medicare.

And, as I predicted, the liberals HATE the Blue Dog compromises.

“Waxman made a deal that is unacceptable,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), one of about 10 progressives who met repeatedly with Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Wednesday.

“We signed a pledge to reject any plan that doesn’t include a robust public option, and this plan doesn’t have a robust public option,” he added.

By sundown Wednesday, the outcry from the left had become so loud that Waxman was forced to scrap a scheduled markup of the compromise measure. He rescheduled the meeting for Thursday morning and convened a mass question-and-answer session for a deeply divided Democratic Caucus — a meeting that is expected to be extremely contentious.

So, the question remains: Can such compromise measures pass the House? Assuming, that is, they survive the reconciliation process with the other committee bills. I don’t think they can.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) predicted that House liberals, who believe they have compromised away several core issues to further President Barack Obama’s agenda, might finally buck leadership if they are force-fed a weakened public option.

“I don’t think it would pass the House — I wouldn’t vote for it,” Frank, a CPC member, told POLITICO.

He answered “yes” emphatically when asked if progressives were willing to delay the entire process as the Blue Dogs have done.

And, I said earlier, this deal still has to be reconciled with work done in other committees.

“Miller told them that the Energy and Commerce bill was only one of three health care bills passed by the House — and that it was the only one that has a public option plan we don’t like,” said a person who was at the meeting.

“He said they would have plenty of opportunities to change it back,” said the source, who added that members left the meeting still agitated but “somewhat reassured.”

The question now becomes, I think, when the liberals eliminate the concessions made to Blue Dogs, how will those conservative Democrats vote? And that, my friends, is the $64,000 question.

Read the rest...

New Jefferson County Occupational Tax Near

Apparently, the Jefferson County legislative delegation has a proposal on the table for a new occupational tax. It would re-instate the 0.5% occupational tax and make it applicable to all people in the County.

Rogers' bill, if agreed to by county lawmakers and approved in a special session of the Legislature that could start as early as Aug. 10, would:

Enact a new half-percent occupational tax that everyone who works in Jefferson County would pay. Professionals who must buy business licenses were exempted under the old tax.

Require a vote of county residents in 2012 to approve continuation of the tax or end it.

Phase out the tax if voters reject it. That phaseout would cut the tax by 20 percent a year for five years.

Ignored completely in this proposal is the fact that the new tax would be arguably unconstitutional.


Essentially, the logic goes like this. The state constitution places a limit on how much tax on income the legislature can make us pay. The state income tax already taxes us at that maximum level. If the legislature levies this tax on income in Jefferson County, they will violate that constitutional cap on income tax rates.

It’s a simple concept. The proposed tax, from what I can tell without looking at the bill, IS a tax on income… and I’d be happy to conduct that argument with any takers.

So the Jefferson County legislative delegation seems poised to break the law. Isn’t that inspiring?

Read the rest...

Breaking: Blue Dogs Reach Deal With Waxman

As I had said last week, we shouldn’t trust the Blue Dogs too far because their goals are different from ours. Today they reached an agreement with Waxman and consented to let the Committee begin the markup of the bill. They did demand that the full house not vote until after the August recess, though, which is good.

As a result of the deal, party leaders have agreed to put off a House vote until the fall, giving members more time to digest the legislation — and opponents more time to attack it.

The Blue Dogs also succeeded in cutting $100 billion from the overall cost of the bill, bringing the total price tag under $1 trillion. The legislation will now exempt small businesses with a payroll less than $500,000 from paying for any government-sponsored health coverage - double the $250,000 in the initial draft. Doctors and other health care providers would also be allowed to negotiate their payment rates with the government-sponsored health care arm.

The new version of the bill also has a breakthrough on the concept of health care “co-ops,” seen by some as an alternative to a public plan. States would be allowed to create co-ops for residents to buy private insurance. But the Waxman-Ross deal will also keeps the "public option" of government-sponsored health care.

So, some good things, but nowhere near enough. I want to review the details over the next days and weeks to see what impact on the whole bill these changes have. I’ll get back to you with details when I have them.

Read the rest...

Can A Bipartisan Health Plan Pass?

We’re hearing rumors over the past few days about where proposals in the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Finance Committee may be heading. Some of the progress seems promising, but I am skeptical.

In the Senate Finance Committee, a bipartisan group of 6 Senators (3 Democrats and 3 Republicans) may have reached a tentative agreement to remove the “public option” from the legislation (replaced by “co-ops”) and remove a requirement for employers to offer insurance or be fined. We don’t know if individuals would still be fined, though, so we have to wait until something is announced.

Not a lot is leaking from the House, so we don't know what concessions are being made... or who is making them.

But this got me thinking. Let’s say that both committees pass the changes mentioned above, and send the bills on to the full chambers. Can they even pass the full House/Senate? Senate Democrats are already grumbling about the Chairman of the Senate Finance making too many concessions to Republicans. And in the House we have letters opposing those concessions that the Blue Dogs are actively seeking.

So even if the committees modify the proposals, couldn’t the bills be modified AGAIN, with those provisions re-inserted by the full chambers? Or the bill could be substantially altered in reconciliation (the process to reconcile a Senate bill with a House bill).

Personally, I don’t think a majority of the Democrats will vote in favor of a bill that lacks both a “public option” and a fine for no insurance. At that point, either the bill fails or they change it back to something they like better.

Let’s see how things play out.

UPDATE: No floor vote before August recess, markup begins, and Blue Dogs pull their support if their amendments fail.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/blue-dogs-strike-deal-no-health-vote-before-recess-2009-07-29.html

Read the rest...

Are House Democrats Censoring Republicans?

That’s the buzz we’ve been hearing for the past week or so. This censorship comes in two basic forms: censoring written messages sent to constituents and not letting them speak during Special Orders.

“Democrat censorship of House Republicans’ constituent mailings has reached Orwellian levels. Republican members of the House Monday night took to the House floor during Special Orders speeches and gave examples of some of the censorship horror stories. Democrats on the Franking Commission have even gone as far as to object to and censor from one member’s communication to constituents a direct quote, in context, from President Obama.“

Franking is the privilege of Congressmen to send letters to constituents without having to pay postage. Traditionally there has been a committee in place to prevent members from abusing the privilege, but it now appears is if that committee is abusing its power.

“The Franking Commission came back and told me I could not say ‘government run healthcare’ and I could not say the ‘Democratic Party.’ I had to say ‘the majority party is submitting its public option healthcare program.’ In other words what they’re telling me is that I have to use the same language that the President of the United States uses in his speech or that [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi uses when she talks about this. ‘Public option.’”

“They have never before in the history of the Republic taken the position that you do not have the right to express your opinion on the policies that are being proposed, or that you must reword the language to suit the policies of someone else,” Carter said.

They will admit to mistakes when their noses are rubbed in it, but in the process they unjustly delay communication with constituents.

Staffers of one of Carter’s Republican colleagues sent an example to Carter to read from House floor. Not cleared for inclusion by the member before floor action began, the member is referred to as a “Florida colleague.” This member submitted to the Franking Commission for review and approval a letter to business owners the week of July 13th. Democrats found this language objectionable:

“The bill imposes a new payroll tax on employers who do not provide their employees with insurance.”

Democrats demanded they change it to read:

“In my opinion, the bill imposes a new payroll tax on employers who do not provide their employees with insurance.”

The problem with that instruction is that the bill’s imposition of a new payroll tax is not an opinion. It’s a fact. The “Florida Colleague’s” office pointed out the fact, as stated in black and white on page 150 of their own bill. The commission relented -- but only after delaying the valid communication between this member and constituents for several days.

The other method of censorship, so far used only once, is to cancel the “Special Orders” section so that Republicans cannot speak openly about subjects. For those who don’t know, after the business of the day is over, the House enters the Special Order section of the day, during which members can speak for a period of time on any matter they wish. It’s a method of getting things in the Congressional record without taking up valuable time during the regular business day. Members have to apply for a time slot, which is granted on a first-come, first-served basis.

“The censorship is not limited to franked mail privileges. Last week, House Republicans planned to speak during their Monday leadership Special Orders hour on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s refusal to help secure the release of CIA briefing logs that would disprove or substantiate her accusations that the CIA lied to Congress about harsh interrogation methods used on terrorists we had captured. “House Democrats abruptly voted to adjourn instead of allowing for the traditional Special Orders speeches at the conclusion of business. Democrats did not attempt this same maneuver last night after Republicans threatened to deliver the censorship speeches outside on the Capitol steps.”

Some people believe that motives can be revealed by methods. The fact that the Democrats are willing to actively censor GOP communications with constituents and deny them opportunities to speak on subjects disliked by the Speaker may well reveal something about their character. And it should fill us with foreboding about what ELSE they want to do…

Read the rest...

CBO Says Health Care Plan Will Cause Long-Term Deficits

In a letter to four Congressmen, the Congressional Budget Office says that the current health care plan being considered by Congress will increase long-term deficits.

“Looking ahead to the decade beyond 2019, CBO tries to evaluate the rate at which the budgetary impact of each of those broad categories would be likely to change over time. The net cost of the coverage provisions would be growing at a rate of more than 8 percent per year in nominal terms between 2017 and 2019; we would anticipate a similar trend in the subsequent decade. The reductions in direct spending would also be larger in the second decade than in the first, and they would represent an increasing share of spending on Medicare over that period; however, they would be much smaller at the end of the 10-year budget window than the cost of the coverage provisions, so they would not be likely to keep pace in dollar terms with the rising cost of the coverage expansion. Revenue from the surcharge on high-income individuals would be growing at about 5 percent per year in nominal terms between 2017 and 2019; that component would continue to grow at a slower rate than the cost of the coverage expansion in the following decade. In sum, relative to current law, the proposal would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year budget window.”

In other words, the longer this health care “reform” operates, the more expensive it gets and the more our deficit increases. And that means our national debt goes up even MORE. You know, if Obama doesn’t bankrupt this country through Cap & Trade, then he’ll do it with “healthcare reform.”

This was examined in detail over at Keith Hennessy’s site. I recommend you read the whole thing.
http://keithhennessey.com/2009/07/28/cbo-calls-tko/


Read the rest...

The Alabama Health Care Freedom Act Of 2010

Well, I’m at it again. For the 2009 session, I wrote a state sovereignty resolution that was introduced by Rep Greg Canfield. I hope he will re-introduce it in 2010, and I am working on getting co-sponsors to help its passage.

This year I have authored a bill for a Constitutional amendment that will protect our freedom to purchase and use whatever health insurance we wish. I call it the Alabama Health Care Freedom Act. If you like it, let’s start the search for a sponsor, shall we?

Click here for a MS-Word version of this bill.



SYNOPSIS: This bill would propose an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901 to preserve the freedom of Alabama residents to make decisions about and provide for their own healthcare.

A BILL
TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

To propose an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901 to preserve the freedom of Alabama residents to make decisions about and provide for their own healthcare.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA:

Section 1. The following amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, is proposed and shall become valid as a part thereof when approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon and in accordance with Sections 284, 285, and 287 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended:

PROPOSED AMENDMENT

(a) No law or regulation may indirectly or directly compel any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.

(b) No person or employer may be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services, and shall be permitted to pay directly for lawful health care services.

(c) No health care provider may be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment for lawful health care services, and shall be permitted to accept direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.

(d) Subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person's options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or regulation.

(e) This amendment shall not be interpreted to forbid voluntary participation in any lawful health insurance program, including Medicare and Medicaid.

(f) This amendment applies to any law or regulation, pre-existing or new, Federal, state, or local.

Section 2. An election upon the proposed amendment shall be held in accordance with Sections 284 and 285 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Sections 284 and 285 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, and the election laws of this state.

Section 3. The appropriate election official shall assign a ballot number for the proposed constitutional amendment on the election ballot and shall set forth the following description of the substance or subject matter of the proposed constitutional amendment:

"Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, to protect an individual’s right to choose his or her own insurance policy or carrier; to render invalid any law requiring Alabama citizens to acquire paid health insurance; and to render invalid any law levying legal penalties or fines on an individual’s choice of healthcare insurance.”

"Proposed by Act ________."

This description shall be followed by the following language:

"Yes ( ) No ( )."

Read the rest...

Governor To Appoint 193 Citizens To Boards

The Governor has a statutory responsibility to appoint people to the many commissions and boards that exist in the state. At the moment, there are 193 vacancies that need to be filled, and Riley intends to fill them by the end of the year. You can find his announcement here:
http://governorpress.alabama.gov/pr/pr-2009-07-28-01-boards_commissions.asp

You can find a complete list of vacant seats here:
http://governor.alabama.gov/yourgov/upcoming_appointments.aspx

If you wish to apply for a seat, you can go here:
http://governor.alabama.gov/contact/board_form.aspx

If you wish to recommend someone else for a board seat, you may do so here:
http://governor.alabama.gov/contact/recommendation_form.aspx

This is an opportunity to become a part of the political process. Board/commission service has been used in the past as a springboard to elective office, if that’s something you’re thinking about.



Read the rest...

Time To Press Reset Button For Health Care Reform

Obama likes the reset button… he used that rhetoric in regards to Russia, meaning that we should “start over” with a new relationship.

"I think that there has been a time over the last several years where Russian-U.S. relations were not as strong as they should be. What I said coming in is that I wanted to press the reset button on relations between the United States and Russia."

So this concept of “starting over” when things get bad, trying from the beginning to change for the better… well, it’s something that PresBo likes. Okay, I am not opposed to that concept… so now I say that it’s time to hit the reset button on health care reform.

Democrats started this whole process on two assumptions. The first assumption was that our system of health insurance was broken across the board, and the entire system needed to be changed, “fixed,” and controlled by Government. The second assumption was that the Democrats had the needed votes to push it through Congress, relying on the energy and optimism left over from the election of Barack Hussein Obama.


The second assumption has been shown to be wrong. The myth of Democrat solidarity was being stretched long before the Blue Dogs took a stand and said no to party leadership demands for the bill. At that point the myth wasn’t just shredded, it exploded all over the political landscape.

The first assumption, that the entire system is broken and needs to be controlled by government, is exactly the wrong foot upon which to start the process of drafting legislation. This assumption eliminates entire subcategories of mild or moderate amounts of reform. Gone is the possibility of leaving the part that works alone and tweaking federal regulations to cover the uninsured. In fact, gone is any possibility of a free-market based solution to the problems. And all of this happened without any debate.

No discussion was held to determine the best starting place, the Democratic leadership simply announced that the debate was over and a consensus had been reached. Treating half of the country in such a high-handed and cavalier manner certainly isn’t the best way in the world to build a consensus on legislation.

And it hasn’t worked. While public opinion polls show at best lackluster support for the legislation being worked on in Congress, large portions of the Democrat party have basic problems with the underlying assumptions to the bill. Republicans have been ignored to this point, treated as the ugly cousin who nobody likes or wants around, and excluded from any substantive contributions to the bills. Now that the Democrats are facing serious divisions within their own party, the Republicans are told that it can’t pass without their support. Too bad, then, that the Democrats were so intent on rejecting Republican contributions to the bill.

I think that the healthcare bill as it is, based upon incorrect and overly limiting basic assumptions, is beyond salvaging in its current shape. Small and/or targeted changes to the bill still leave in place too much that relies on that fundamental and mistaken assumption that government control is mandatory.

It is time to press the reset button on health care reform, scrap all of the legislation produced to date, and go back to start from the beginning. Open the debate up to ideas from somewhere besides the extreme left-wing of the Democrat party this time, and maybe this time they can produce not only a bill that can be passed, and that would receive bipartisan support from both parties, but also a bill that actually manages to solve some of our problems without negatively impacting those who are happy with their insurance and medical care.

So, here’s the reset button. Any takers?

Read the rest...

Democrats search for villains on health care

The Democrats are publicly blaming several groups for slowing down their health care reform efforts. Most obviously, they blame the Republicans, the “Party of No”… though looking at the numbers makes this nonsensical. Democrats have the raw numbers to push through any legislation they like without a single GOP vote. No, it is clear that the people who are slowing down passage are… fellow Democrats.

“But even if they won’t acknowledge it publicly, most Democrats in Congress know the truth: It’s their own colleagues who are slowing down progress in both the House and the Senate.

“Back in 2005, Democrats made a concerted push to recruit conservative candidates to help them win in Republican-leaning districts. The strategy worked, propelling the party to power in 2006 and giving it a larger majority in 2008.

“But now Democrats at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are grappling with the downside: To get health care reform through Congress, they’re going to have to get it past these new, more conservative members of their party — specifically, the seven Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee who have delayed consideration of the bill.”

And they’re not shy about showing it. Waxman threatened to bypass the conservative Democrats entirely, and it’s even been suggested that they want the bill to fail or they are racist. Maybe if they’re attacked viciously enough, I suppose the logic goes, they’ll relent and toe the liberal line.

“The frustration bubbled over last Friday after negotiations broke down between the Blue Dogs and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). Afterward, the chairman complained, “We’re not going to let them empower Republicans to control the committee.”

“During a meeting of committee Democrats shortly afterward, New York Rep. Eliot Engel and others gave the two Blue Dogs in attendance — Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross and Ohio Rep. Zack Space — a piece of their minds, those in attendance said afterward.

“And on Monday, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman raised the possibility that some Blue Dogs are dragging their heels because they want Obama to fail — both on health care and at the polls in 2012.”

I don’t know if the Democrats can muster the support to pass this bad legislation. I DO know that their success would be America’s failure. Read the rest...

Hypocrisy: Obama Said Bills Shouldn’t Be Rushed Through

Obama is on the record saying that bills shouldn’t be rushed through without giving members of Congress a chance to read them.



If the player above doesn’t work, use this link to hear the audio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOnYnIDX0Eg

BARACK OBAMA: ...When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them.

RANDI RHODES: 14 pounds it was!

BARACK OBAMA: Yeah. And it gets rushed through without any clear deliberation or debate then these kinds of things happen. And I think that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean you remember that there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration.

Of course, this was back in 2004 when he was a Congressman. Now that he’s President, rushing bills through and denying “real debate” is apparently a good thing.

Read the rest...

Special Session To Pass Illegal Tax Bill?

Governor Riley has announced that he will probably call a special session in August in order to take some action on the financial crisis in Jefferson County.

Gov. Bob Riley has said he ex­pects to call lawmakers into special session in August to deal with a financial crisis fac­ing the state's largest county, Jefferson. A spokesman for the governor, Todd Stacy, said the special session will likely not include a discussion of ways to improve education funding.

"The governor wants to limit it to only the one issue, the Jef­ferson County financial issue. With something that impor­tant, we don't need any distrac­tions," Stacy said.

Why he’s going to do it I don’t know. He’d early said he would only if the majority of the Jefferson County legislative delegation could reach some agreement on what steps to take. As of now, no such majority agreement exists.

“A meeting of Jefferson County legislators failed to produce a plan for addressing the financial problems in Alabama's most populous county. The group spent about three hours meeting Monday in Birmingham and agreed to meet again. The group is trying to come up with a proposal to replace the county's occupational tax, which was struck down by a judge.”

So, why call a special session if the Jefferson County delegation can’t even agree on anything yet? Tradition in the legislature is for the body as a whole to agree with a measure if the local delegation unanimously agrees on it. That’s because they’re not comfortable with tinkering in another county’s affairs. But no unanimous agreement exists.

I posted previously that any replacement occupational tax would likely fail a constitutional test, and I outlined the legal arguments. I would have to see any specific plan to judge, but if it taxes income, then it is illegal. I understand the County needs revenue, but that need does not excuse the levying of an illegal tax.

Read the rest...

Dem’s Health Care Bill “Hides” Expenditures

As we all know, the CBO has come out with a cost estimate of the bill. What we did NOT know was that this estimate was low, and it was low because Democrats crafted it that way.

As it turns out, at least two sections (164 and 2002) contain language indicating that the expenditures in the section “don’t count” towards the overall cost of the bill.

"Amounts appropriated under this section, and outlays flowing from such appropriations, shall not be taken into account for purposes of any budget enforcement procedures including allocations under section 302(a) and (b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act and budget resolutions for fiscal years during which appropriations are made from the Fund," it says under "Budgetary Implications."

Did that just say the money spent under this section shouldn't be counted?

"It's worded in a way to where (the money) is not included when the Congressional Budget Office scores the bill," said Ross, who argues that a delay until after Labor Day would be a good idea.

And that wasn’t the only section he found.

“One thing I quickly checked when I looked at the health care bill language again was to see if that type of budget language was used anywhere else.

“Yes, on page 76, there was another example of where the costs of a certain program would not be "counted" for this bill.

“In this case, it was for Section 164, "Reinsurance Program For Retirees," a new "temporary reinsurance program" that's designed to "provide reimbursement to assist participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees."

“Does that sort of sound to you like the insurance industry would be getting money from the feds to pay out claims for retirees?

“It is not an open-ended fund though, as on page 70, it says "the total of all such amounts requested shall not exceed" $10 billion.

“At least the taxpayers got that going for them, eh?”

Ladies and Gentlemen, Jamie Dupree does an excellent job of looking at what is really in Legislation. I urge you to look at his blog at least periodically.

Read the rest...

Global Warming… In A Parka!

As you all know by now, I’m sure, man-caused global warming is causing the whole world to melt like a giant icicle, and if we don’t exercise our God-like powers to bring global temperatures down then we will all either drown or burn up! This threat is so serious and imminent that the US House has passed a Cap & Trade bill that will crater our economy, and the President is urging that it gets passed YESTERDAY!

It’s puzzling, then, to note that this is the coldest July on record… indeed 3,000 record low temperatures have been set across the nation! The surface temperature of the sea is down compared to previous years as well.


And in case you were wondering, a new peer-reviewed study indicates that nature, and not man, is responsible for temperature changes.

“Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.”

(Find the abstract here.)

So, take it for what it’s worth… maybe passing Cap & Tax isn’t the most critical and urgent thing in the world after all.

UPDATE: Here is a supporting article on the subject, going into a bit more detail.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/climate_change_july_lows/2009/07/27/240675.html?s=al&promo_code=8445-1

Read the rest...

Dems Alone Can't Deliver Obama Health Care Win

An Associated Press article reports that Democrats and Republicans alike now say that some Republican support for the health care plan is needed for it to pass.

President Barack Obama's push to overhaul health care needs Republican votes, lawmakers from both parties say.

Democratic and GOP officials acknowledged Sunday that Obama's ambitious plan would not pass without the aid of a doubtful GOP, whose members are almost united against the White House effort.

"Look, there are not the votes for Democrats to do this just on our side of the aisle," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., the chairman of the budget committee.

Rep. Jim Cooper, a Tennessee Democrat and a member of the fiscally conservative "Blue Dogs," said he doubts the Democratic-controlled House could pass a proposal as it's drafted now.

Of course, not all Democrats agree with that assessment.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, however, insisted she has the votes to move forward with the plan despite concerns among fiscally conservative fellow Democrats.

"When I take this bill to the floor, it will win. We will move forward, it will happen," said Pelosi, D-Calif.

Democrats are losing ground with their own members on various issues. We know about the 50+ Blue Dog Democrats who oppose the plan, but there are also 20 Democrats who won’t vote in favor as long as abortions aren’t specifically prohibited from coverage.

Tell us again how bipartisan this bill is?

"The only thing bipartisan about the measure so far is the opposition to it," said McConnell, R-Ky.

Huh. I think I said something like that last week…

Read the rest...

Politics Alabama Policies

This is a privately owned and operated site. The owner maintains sole discretion as to what content is and is not allowed. The policies may be updated at any time without warning or notice.

Commenting Policy

Comments are welcome from all, but there are some rules:

1. Abusive, threatening, or overly profane comments are not allowed. Act like an adult.

2. Do not reveal another person’s personal information. Violating this policy will get you banned immediately and may result in your private information being published.

3. Stay on topic. Occasional deviations are expected and are not discouraged, but a pattern of hijacking threads may result in the offender being banned.

4. Comments represent the opinion of the individual leaving the comment and not the owner of the site. If you believe that a comment is defamatory then contact the blog owner (PoliticsAabama@Hotmail.com) and the situation will be reviewed.

5. Anonymous comments are not allowed. And though pseudonyms ARE allowed, repeated comments using multiple screen names will NOT be allowed. Pick a name (like the one you use in real life) and stick with it.

6. Spam or comments left with the sole intent of advertising a product will be deleted.

7. If you are affiliated with a campaign or have some other direct interest in the subject matter you are commenting on please state this up front. Failure to do so may result in being banned or having comments deleted.

8. If you feel that a comment violates these policies please contact me.

9. The site owner has the final say about what is and is not allowed.

Privacy Policy

Simple - I don’t reveal anyone’s private information without their permission. I will not sell or give your name, email address, or any other information to another entity. The sole exceptions are:

- Commenters who are overly hostile or who reveal the private information of others may have their own private information revealed for the purpose of warning other blog operators.

- Campaign operatives (and other individuals with a vested interest in the subject matter) who post comments without identifying their interests may be exposed. This could include individuals with a business interest denigrating competitors under the guise of a private citizen.

Read the rest...

Changes On Comments

I was going to wait until Wednesday to decide what to do about comment changes, but recent events this afternoon required me to take some action immediately. I do want to thank those who took the time and trouble to answer the previous poll about comment changes, and I'm sorry that I didn't leave action until the full week was finished. After reviewing the results to date and pondering recent events, I have decided to make two changes with regards to comments.

The first change I will make is to institute a formal set of policies detailing what is and is not acceptable in commenting. I would like to stress that this is a private site, and all deletions and banning are at my discretion. I will not do so gratuitously or to stifle debate, only to answer infractions of the policies.

The policies should be posted shortly.

The second change I will make is to enable comment moderation. When you submit a comment, it will not appear immediately. It will appear once I have had a chance to glance at it and approve it. Again, disapproval will only be earned for violations of the policies.

This should have a minimal impact on our comment procedures, as to date only a very small and select group has behaved in a way to trigger deletion and/or banning. You may still comment exactly the way you do now, and anonymous commenting will still be enabled. The only change you should see is a delay in comments appearing on the site. I will endeavor to keep that delay as short as possible.

If you have any questions or comments about the new policies, this is the place to make them. And if you disagree with a decision I have made about one of your posts, please feel free to email me about the issue.


Read the rest...

Montgomery Fails At Solving Property Crimes

This wasn’t news to me when I read it in yesterday’s Advertiser, as it is something I’ve reported on for years. I have long maintained charts that show how poorly Montgomery does at solving property crimes… in comparison with other cities of comparable size and the statewide average.

“Of the cities examined, Montgomery's clearance rate for overall and for non-violent crimes are the only ones less than 10%. There were far more larceny thefts committed in Montgomery than any other type, and the clearance rate for that category is an abysmal 4%, as opposed to the state average of 18%.”

For those who don’t know, a crime is considered “cleared” when the police make an arrest or have enough evidence to arrest but choose not to do so. No conviction is necessary for the crime to be cleared, so the municipal judges can’t be blamed for this… it falls squarely on the shoulders of the police. Oh, and catching one person may clear several crimes at once.


I am glad to see that the Montgomery Advertiser has done an article on it, but this is something I’ve talked about for a long time. When I brought it up with then-Mayor Bright the first time, I was told that was a problem from his predecessor and he would address it… but the non-violent clearance rates remained low. The next time I spoke with then-Mayor Bright about it, he claimed the “former” police chief was at fault, and the new Chief would fix it… but the non-violent clearance rates remained low.

NOW we’re being told that the MPD clears a lot more cases than are reported, but the procedures are to blame because the cleared cases aren’t getting tracked. Yeah, right. If Montgomery can’t track their property crime clearance, how is Birmingham managing? They have FAR more such crimes than we do, but they manage to track them adequately.

It comes down to two choices: Either we believe that the Montgomery PD isn’t bothering to solve property crime cases, or we believe that they are too administratively incompetent to accurately track their own performance.

From my own personal experience, I tend to believe the former. I have had two encounters with the MPD on property crime issues. The first involved an expensive bicycle that was stolen… the thief hacked through a chain in the middle of the day to get to the bike, all the time with a dog barking angrily at him from behind a chain-link fence two or three feet away. The police took our report, said they’d let us know if it turned up, and then they left. To my knowledge, they didn’t even canvas the neighborhood to see if any of the neighbors had seen what happened… which seems a logical first step if they wanted the crime solved. I ended up doing that myself.

The second encounter was when my wife was involved in a hit and run auto accident. The police took the report and told us that they’d probably never find the guy. I mentioned we might drive around the neighborhood and see if we could spot the vehicle. The police said “Okay, let us know if you find it.”

Let me, at this point, contrast that with another encounter that had nothing to do with crime. As I blogged once about in May, a pickup truck hauling a boat had a little accident… the boat jackknifed on the driver, which sent him plowing into the side of our house. The first respondent was a police cruiser who showed up within three or four minutes of the 911 call. Paramedics, ambulances, and two fire trucks also showed up… as well as a total of not less than four police units. They managed traffic and eventually blocked the street to through traffic while the boat was righted and removed from the scene. They performed very well that day, and I have nothing but praise for the response by not only the MPD, but also the fire department.

So please don’t think I’m criticizing the entire job the MPD does… I’m not. They do many things well, but property crimes seem to have a VERY low priority with them, to the point of very little effort being expended to solve them. A high percentage of murder and rape cases are cleared… but not so much with burglary and larceny/auto theft.

My point is that repeated excuses don’t fix the problem. If the MPD wants us to believe that property crimes are any kind of a priority, we have to see that in how they respond to those crimes… and right now, we don’t.

Read the rest...

Obama Disapproval Rises To Record High

The latest Rasmussen Presidential Approval Index has risen to double digits. With 30% strongly approving of PresBo and 40% strongly disapproving, his Presidential Approval Index today is -10.



The normal response I get to these reports of the Presidential Approval Index is that it only considers those who STRONGLY approve or disapprove, and that the TOTAL approval numbers are still in the majority. Up until now, that has been true.

Overall, 49% approve of Obama’s performance, and 50% disapprove.


Read the rest...

ObamaCare: Not So Sure...

I ran across this video today, and I liked it. It's a pretty good, basic look at why a government solution to health care won't be a good thing. I recommend you give it a look.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqMKK8AoLCw


Read the rest...

New Plan Would Lower Quality Of Health Care

The White House has endorsed a new plan that would tax insurance companies that offer high-end policies offering a large number of features for a high price.

"A premium charge on top of the most expensive packages is one of the ways to ensure that there's a lid on health-care costs," a top administration official told POLITICO. "The president believes this is an intriguing idea."

Obama told Jim Lehrer of PBS' "NewsHour" on Monday: "What's being talked about now, I understand, is the possibility of penalizing insurance companies who are offering super, gold-plated Cadillac plans.

Why do I say it would lower the cost of health care? Because penalizing insurers who offer high-coverage plans for high prices is an attempt to discourage those insurers from offering the policies.

The Finance Committee conversation was first reported Monday by Martin Vaughan of Dow Jones Newswires, who wrote: "Kerry's proposal would stand as a disincentive to insurers to offer high-dollar plans, and would steer employers toward choosing more value-minded plans. The proposal builds off of an approach touted by former Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., during the Democratic health-care overhaul attempt in the 1990's."

So, if we punish insurers and people (the costs would be passed on to the individual) for large healthcare plans that offer a lot of features, eventually those plans will be offered less… if the tax is high enough, they may be taxed out of existence. But if a person can afford the high premiums for the best coverage, why should he not be allowed to purchase it on the same basis as everyone else?

The result will eventually be that the best policies will disappear, leaving only policies in the market-place that the government thinks are reasonable. By imposing minimal standards on policies, they already plan to eliminate cheap, bare-bones polices for people who only want a basic amount of insurance.

So the government plan is to eliminate basic, low-cost insuranec AND expensive, feature-rich policies. The result is that everyone gets to purchase their mid-range, “one-size-fits-all’ policy and enjoy our government’s idea of good health insurance and medical care.

Read the rest...

CBO Weighs In On Health Care Plan Again

The Congressional Budget Office weighed in yesterday on a new White House plan that would supposedly control costs and generate savings. The CBO disagreed, showing that both short and long term savings would be small at best.

A key House chairman and moderate House Democrats on Tuesday

agreed to a White House-backed proposal that would give an outside panel the power to make cuts to government-financed health care programs. White House budget director Peter Orszag declared the plan "probably the most important piece that can be added" to the House's health care reform legislation.

But on Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill's $1 trillion price tag.

"In CBO's judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized ... but there is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized. Looking beyond the 10-year budget window, CBO expects that this proposal would generate larger but still modest savings on the same probabilistic basis," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in a letter to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Saturday.

On his White House blog, Orszag – who served as CBO director in 2007 and 2008 – downplayed the office's small probable savings number in favor of the proposal's more speculative long-term benefits.

"The point of the proposal, however, was never to generate savings over the next decade. ... Instead, the goal is to provide a mechanism for improving quality of care for beneficiaries and reducing costs over the long term," Orszag wrote. "In other words, in the terminology of our belt-and-suspenders approach to a fiscally responsible health reform, the IMAC is a game changer not a scoreable offset."

But scoreable offsets are the immediate savings that fiscally conservative Blue Dogs and other Democratic moderates have been pushing for precisely because they will help offset the bill's cost.

The proposal's meager savings are a blow to Democrats working furiously to bring down costs in order to win support from Blue Dogs, who have threatened to vote against the bill without significant changes. The proposal was heralded as a breakthrough on Tuesday after Blue Dogs and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman emerged from the White House with agreement on giving the independent panel, rather than Congress, the ability to rein in Medicare spending.

Yes, the Pesident keeps saying that health care costs are a threat to our economy and need to be brought down, but even a change that is specifically crafted to be a cost-saving measure turns out to be a dud.

Look, guys, scrapping our current system in favor of massive government controls is NOT a good and effective plan. Since the only people really supporting it any more are the extreme left wing of the Democrat party, why don’t we abandon this one and get to work on a more reasonable and, hopefully, effective plan?

I can even point you to some more reasonable suggestions that have a much better chance of working... and they are based upon the free market rather than government control.

http://healthcare.cato.org/free-market-approach-health-care-reform

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/health_plan112007.pdf

Read the rest...

Five Freedoms We Will Lose With Obama Care

I want to highlight some op-ed pieces that each bring up one or more important points about Obama’s health care proposal.

Five freedoms you’d lose in health care reform.

“If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.

“In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.”

The five freedoms you would lose are:

Freedom to choose what's in your plan
Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
Freedom to keep your existing plan
Freedom to choose your doctors

Americans don’t want what Democrats are offering.

“I think the plan is being slowed and may well be stopped not by ideology, or even by philosophy in a strict sense, but by simple American common sense. I suspect voters, the past few weeks, have been giving themselves an internal Q-and-A that goes something like this:

“Will whatever health care bill is produced by Congress increase the deficit? “Of course.” Will it mean tax increases? “Of course.” Will it mean new fees or fines? “Probably.” Can I afford it right now? “No, I’m already getting clobbered.” Will it make the marketplace freer and better? “Probably not.” Is our health care system in crisis? “Yeah, it has been for years.” Is it the most pressing crisis right now? “No, the economy is.” Will a health-care bill improve the economy? “I doubt it.”

“The White House misread the national mood.”

Rhetoric has met reality.

“What happened to Obamacare? Rhetoric met reality. As both candidate and president, the master rhetorician could conjure a world in which he bestows upon you health care nirvana: more coverage, less cost.

“But you can't fake it in legislation. Once you commit your fantasies to words and numbers, the Congressional Budget Office comes along and declares that the emperor has no clothes.

“President Obama premised the need for reform on the claim that medical costs are destroying the economy. True. But now we learn -- surprise! -- that universal coverage increases costs. The congressional Democrats' health care plans, says the CBO, increase costs in the range of $1 trillion plus.

“In response, the president retreated to a demand that any bill he sign be revenue neutral. But that's classic misdirection: If the fierce urgency of health care reform is to radically reduce costs that are producing budget-destroying deficits, revenue neutrality (by definition) leaves us on precisely the same path to insolvency that Obama himself declares unsustainable.”

The plans won’t decrease costs.

“The fundamental problem with health care reform is the absence of realistic plans to reduce unit costs. Without cost controls, tens of millions of newly-insured people will further cripple U.S. global competitiveness, which is already grievously injured because the U.S. spends roughly 70 percent more on health care, as a percentage of GDP, than other developed nations, yet cannot point to commensurate 70 percent increases in value.

“So far, the Democrats rely on two allegedly cost-controlling remedies - a new national health-insurance marketplace, modeled on the Massachusetts Connector (which features only private health insurers), augmented with a public insurance program. Advocates aver that the cost problems of Massachusetts, whose marketplace recently required a $115 million budget slash, can be remedied with a cost-controlling, government-run program, such as Medicare.

“But polls reveal that many Americans don't buy it. Does anyone believe that a government-run grocery store would provide more value for the money than successful private-sector stores, like Publix Super Markets?

“Medicare's alleged cost-controlling ability is illusory, driven by faulty math, regulatory power to shift costs to the private sector, and pricing formulas that pass expenses to taxpayers and future generations.

“The 800-pound gorilla is Medicare's unfunded liability for future benefits, estimated by Medicare Trustees at $38 trillion. Medicare created this massive liability by charging current enrollees too low a price: government used the payments by working non-beneficiaries to make up the shortfall. If Medicare were a private insurance company, it would have to increase its costs by an additional trillion dollars annually to account for the interest on this debt (assuming 3% interest). But the federal government's accounting ignores this expense.”

So, those are some opinions being expressed on the internet. Some contain some good information, and others contain some insightful comments. I hope you enjoyed them and found them worth reading.

Read the rest...

Riley Increases Proration

Because of declining revenue collections due to the economic downturn, Riley had early declared a proration of 9% in the education budget. On Friday, Riley increased the proration amount to 11% and transferred the last $116 million from the State’s rainy day fund to prevent deeper cuts.

"No one is pleased that the economic situation requires further reductions in education, but they must be made in order for Alabama to meet its obligation to taxpayers to have a balanced budget," Riley said.

Riley says the latest cutback means the state will spend $5.7 billion on education this fiscal year. That's down $1 billion from fiscal 2008.

Alabama's constitution prohibits deficit spending and gives the governor the power to cut spending when appropriations exceed tax collections.

No doubt about it, the economic slump has affected everybody, governments included. I am glad, however, that so far government has resisted the temptation to raise taxes to ensure their revenue flow.


However, the Legislature isn’t COMPLETELY sane. Did you know that a new tax was levied on us during the last Legislative session? I completely missed this one, but we will now pay an additional 50 cents for our driver’s licenses. And why? The money goes to fund “…the Alabama Citizenship Trust Fund, which provides funding for the American Village historical park and a national veterans cemetery in Montevallo.”

Are they kidding? The Legislature actually voted a new tax to fund a historical park and a cemetery? In THIS recession? What were they thinking? No, better question… Why WEREN’T they thinking?

Read the rest...

Wine Label Censored By ABC Board

Okay, this is a backwards decision right out of the middle ages if I’ve ever heard of one. Apparently, the ABC board has banned a wine from being sold in Alabama because the label features a person “posed in an immodest or sensuous manner.” So that you can judge for yourself, the wine label is presented below.



This is more than a little ridiculous. The label is actually a reproduction of an 1895 advertising poster, and the wine has been sold in Alabama for the past three years.

"We've never had complaints from any of the 49 other states in the U.S. or the 20 countries around the world where Cycles Gladiator is sold," Leigon said Friday afternoon. "And in the great state of Alabama it was fine for three years."

The wine debuted in 2006, when its label won accolades from the annual American Graphic Design Awards, he said. It was sold in Alabama from that time up until this month, apparently without incident, Leigon said.

Alabama law has this to say about what is and isn’t permissible:

"No advertisement may include any illustration(s) of any person(s) consuming alcoholic beverages or any person(s) posed in an immodest or sensuous manner, nor shall any advertising contain profanity or offensive language."

Personally, I think the label is fine. Nothing wrong with it. In fact, it’s eye-catching and memorable… things a wine label must be in this day and age to sell. And in my personal opinion, I think today's opinion may well be in violation of first amendment protections of free speech. Note that the section of law quoted above applies ONLY to the ABC board... I wonder if it's ever been challenged in court as an unconstitutional limitation on free speech?

So once again Alabama shows itself firmly mired in the dark ages of morality. (sigh) I know change is a long and slow process, but this is ridiculous!

Read the rest...

Breaking: Talks With Blue Dogs Resume

As I reported earlier today, talks with Blue Dog Democrats in a House subcommittee broke down. Indeed, as details emerged, we learned that things were getting personal.

Mr. Waxman said that if Blue Dogs were still dissatisfied, “we may have to bypass the committee so we can move forward on this legislation.”

“We have to go to a markup of the legislation next week, or acknowledge the fact that Democrats do not control the committee any longer,” Mr. Waxman said. “I will not allow Blue Dogs to turn over control of the committee to Republicans, which they have threatened to do. I am troubled that some Democrats would rather align themselves with Republicans than work out their problems with fellow Democrats.”

Representative Charlie Melancon, a Blue Dog Democrat from Louisiana, gave a blunt summary of the situation: “Mr. Waxman has decided to sever discussion with Blue Dogs who are trying to get a bill that works for America.”

Mr. Melancon said Mr. Waxman had spurned most of the Blue Dogs’ recommendations and had not negotiated in good faith. “I have been lied to,” he said.

Racial overtones also appeared to creep into the intraparty dispute. One African-American Democrat pointed out that the seven Blue Dogs who were holding up the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee were “a nondiverse group” of white men.

As you can see, the conservative Democrats were being lied to, told they would cooperate or be bypassed, and were even threatened with being branded as racists. In short, the majority Democrat party was treating the Blue Dogs just like they treat Republicans. The message was clear… “cooperate or we let slip the dogs of war on you.”


However, it now seems as if other members of the committee, fearing that they may be totally bypassed, have convinced Waxman and the Blue Dogs to come back and continue talking.

“Our group of seven has always believed that we want to be a constructive part of the legislative process,” Ross said. “Earlier today it appeared that those negotiations had reached a standstill. The chairman has now invited us to sit back down with him again and continue those negotiations.

“Talks are back on,” Ross added.

Though Democrats view this is a hopeful sign, in reality Waxman and the Blue Dogs have been deadlocked on issues for quite a while.

The fact that talks have resumed, however, do not mean that any additional agreements have been reached. And as they stood by each other’s side, both Waxman and Ross alluded to the fact that, substantively, talks haven’t budged from where they have been stuck for days.

“We basically agreed to keep talking,” Ross said.

So, the major question is, can the House still pass the legislation before they break for their August recess? Maybe, maybe not.

Even with Waxman’s hope for a Monday resurrection of the markup, Hoyer acknowledged that the House is unlikely to meet its deadline of passing a bill by Friday. He said the House session may extend to Saturday or even the first two days of the next week.

And he held open the possibility that the House may break for its summer recess without passing a bill.

I was wondering what caused the massive meltdown. Though not a complete answer, the article linked above does contain a partial answer.

Hoyer said that the agreement announced Friday morning to resolve the thorny and complex issue of "regional disparity" shows that Democrats can bridge their differences.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said that agreement probably won 20 to 25 Caucus votes for the bill.

Yet that deal was one of the items that unnerved the Blue Dogs earlier on Friday.

Melancon, for one, said he felt the deal was cut to undermine the Blue Dogs, so their votes wouldn't be needed.

Although he reportedly attended the emergency Energy and Commerce meeting, Melancon did not appear afterwards.

As the Waxman-Blue Dog drama played out, House Democratic liberals warned that they should not be taken for granted.

As I said in another post, when the Democrats make a change to attract one group, they annoy another group with that change. That seems to be at least a contributing factor to what happened today.

You see, the extreme liberal portion of the party doesn’t want to make any comprises with the more conservative segments.

In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said they had significant concerns about the one deal that had been struck by Waxman and the Blue Dogs -- namely, the creation of an independent commission to set reimbursement rates for Medicare and the so-called "public option."

The liberals, whose main issue is creation of the public option, warned against giving in to Blue Dog demands that the public option exist only as a fallback option, triggered if other reforms fail to ensure competition.

As you see, the Democrat leadership’s idea of “cooperation” and “compromise” seems to be “do what we want or you’ll regret it.” That’s the way they’ve treated the Republicans ever since gaining the majority, and that’s how they are treating the Blue Dogs.

And Blue Dogs? If I can have your attention for a moment? Now do you see why Republicans are so reluctant to cooperate with the Democrat leadership? Real NICE party you’re a part of…

Read the rest...

Cap & Trade Discussion

The following is a discussion that was aired on Fox News’ Wall Street Journal Report. The discussion is with Bjorn Lomborg, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus, a think-tank in Denmark. He is also the author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist Guide To Global Warming.”

Here is the video of the discussion.
http://online.wsj.com/video/climate-change-bill-sparks-controversy/E4BF79C6-ECCE-4110-A560-B193ABB07099.html





Bjorn points out that Cap & Trade hasn’t worked in Europe,and what is wrong with the US proposal. Now make no mistake, he’s not against “fixing the environment,” he just thinks the US plan will fail spectacularly. He proposes other fixes to wean us off energy dependence, many of which I do not agree with. But he comes across as very intelligent and well-informed, and makes his case very well.

I do not agree with our ultimate course as Bjorn suggests, but he has good solid arguments and is exactly correct on his assessment of the US Cap & Tax bill.

“So essentially, you’re going to have a very expensive bill doing very little good for the climate. That’s a bad idea.”

The video is 6:44 long, and I urge anybody even remotely interested to watch it. I’m not going to try and transcribe the entire video, so if you want the details of the discussion, give it a peek.

Read the rest...

Breaking: Talks With Blue Dogs On Healthcare Collapse

We are getting early word that talks with the Blue Dog Democrats on the health care bill in the House Energy and Commerce Committee have broken down. The following excerpt is from an article recently posted on RollCall.com.

Talks With Blue Dogs Appear Dead

By Steven T. Dennis

Closed-door negotiations over health care reform between House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and conservative Blue Dog Democrats broke down Friday afternoon and appeared dead.

A visibly angry Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the Blue Dog health care task force chairman, said Waxman reneged on deals the two sides had previously agreed on: an independent Medicare commission and adopting Senate language on a public insurance option. He also said Waxman's threats to bring the bill straight to the floor — and bypass a markup in Energy and Commerce — were not helpful.

"We are actually trying to save the bill and we are trying to save our party," Ross said after the meeting ended. He said it's his understanding that the two sides would not have any additional meetings.

"It's my understanding that will be the last meeting we have," Ross said.

This comes after House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman threatened to bypass the committee vote and simply take the bill to the main floor of the house.

A key House committee chairman on Friday threatened to roll over moderate Democrats who are holding up the health care reform bill and bring the package straight to the floor.

The statement underscored the deep divisions the health care reform debate is causing in the ranks of the Democratic Party.

Fiscally conservative Blue Dogs are holding up the bill in the House Energy and Commerce Committee over cost concerns and other issues. But Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., on Friday accused those Democrats of empowering Republicans.

"I won't allow them to turn over control of the committee to the Republicans," Waxman said, threatening to bypass the committee process.

Of course, bypassing the committee approval would be couterproductive at best, alienating the conservative Democrats for future legislation, and might not even work.

The radical move would mean Waxman would finish writing the bill in private and merge it with the two bills that have already passed out of the committee in the chamber before bringing it to the floor.

But such a move wouldnâ't necessarily serve Democratic leadership any good.

Nearly all 52 Blue Dogs are expected to vote against the health bill if it hits the House floor in its current form. That spells doom for the measure when coupled with unanimous Republican opposition.

Moreover, senior Blue Dog sources tell FOX News that bypassing the committee could only inflame the situation further.

So, it looks like the Democrats have a hit a roadblock within their own party. Let’s see if they’re REALLY willing to compromise a little, or if they just want to ramrod the thing down our throats.

For the record, the Blue Dog Democrats have a different goal than I would like them to have, but in a limited sense they are fighting for some good things. For example, they don’t want an automatic “public option,” insisting that it only kick in if health care companies fail to meet government-established “goals” over time. I don’t know if that’s a non-negotiable plank with them, but we will see what we will see.

Now that the Democrat leadership is in the process of learning they just can’t ram radical liberal plans down our throats at will… in other words, that not even all Democrats agree with what they want to do… it will be interesting to see how they react. Do they cajole and compromise, or do they bluster and threaten? How they respond will be key to their political viability in the near future.

Read the rest...

How Is Obama Presidency Being Viewed In England?

Well, at least some think that his “socialist projects at home and a pro-Marxist foreign policy are making him unpopular.” In other words, the author of the op-ed makes the case that PresBo’s policies are directly tied to his falling approval numbers. The piece was written by Gerald Warner and published in the Telegraph.

“For this is no ordinary presidency, this is the reign on earth of The One: his approval rating was intended to break the mould by rising inexorably to 100 per cent and beyond. The problem about a mega-hype like the Obama scam is that when it goes pear-shaped it will crash and burn like nothing we have seen since that other hot-air powered marvel, the Hindenburg. Here we are, six months into the great adventure and already our hero is in deep doo-doo.

“How is it with the economic rescue package? Terrific – if you are a Wall Street banker. But if you happen to belong to that uncovenanted majority of the population, the lumpen salariat, you may be coming to the conclusion that crossing FDR’s depression-prolonging New Deal with LBJ’s Great Society is not the answer to your problems. This one will run and run; and so, eventually, will its instigators if they want to stay ahead of the mob with tar and feathers.

“Health care? Hillary must be laughing into her handbag: she was burning her fingers on this red-hot brick when Barack was still at law school. It is no longer Republicans who are the problem about getting this package through Congress: it is Democrats. Even the American left balks at a socialist scheme for health care that would have had Nye Bevan shouting “Hold on a moment!” Your brainchild, Barack – enjoy."

He also criticizes Presbo for his stance on Venzuela.

“The administration is supposed to be the new, cerebral replacement for dumb Dubya. So, how come it assumed, after the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court, in accordance with the constitution, had ordered the army to depose Zelaya that this was a “military coup”? The government has been embarrassed by Washington lawyer Miguel Estrada bringing into the public domain the fact that Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution insists that any president proposing the permissibility of re-election (as Zelaya did) “shall cease forthwith” in his office; and that Article 4 defines such an “infraction” as treason.

“If the Congress and Supreme Court had not deposed Zelaya they would have been accessories to treason. They tell me Barack Obama was a lawyer. They also told us he was a democrat. Yet the Honduran crisis is a direct confrontation between Jeffersonian and Bolivarian principles, in which the President of the United States has chosen the Bolivarian – more bluntly, the Marxist – option. Madness, from an American perspective; but it casts an interesting light on some of the stronger allegations that were made against Obama during the presidential election. Three and a half more years to go – this could get very interesting.”

It’s a good article… give it a read.

Read the rest...