Climate Data To Be Released... Sort Of

I blogged earlier on the whole ClimateGate scandal, where emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were released showing that scientists falsified data and actively worked to suppress dissenting studies.
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2009/11/where-is-lie-on-global-warming.html

In the wake of this scandal, it seems as if the CRU has now decided to release its data so that independent researchers can review their data and confirm their findings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

The U-turn by the university follows a week of controversy after the emergence of hundreds of leaked emails, "stolen" by hackers and published online, triggered claims that the academics had massaged statistics.

In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.

The publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre. The full data, when disclosed, is certain to be scrutinised by both sides in the fierce debate.

I admit to some curiosity, though. What EXACTLY will the CRU be releasing, the raw data they used or the "adjusted" data? You see, after the raw temperatures were collected, they were adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected.

They APPEAR to be promising the release of the raw temperature readings.

Professor Trevor Davies, the university's Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement, said yesterday: "CRU's full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

What else could "full data" mean?

But there's a problem with this. You see, the CRU has already admitted that they destroyed the raw temperature readings and only maintain their "adjusted" numbers.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

So, what exactly are they going to release for other scientists to review? I am quite sure that the "adjusted" numbers will show whatever those who adjusted them WANT them to show. The key will likely be in how and why the raw numbers were changed... something that is now impossible to verify.

Science means being able to reproduce results. If results can't be verified or reproduced, then they are worthless. By destroying the raw data, the CRU has made verification impossible, and so their entire compilation of temperature readings are worthless.

Don't agree with me? Okay then, prove the CRU's figures are accurate and weren't "adjusted" to advance the global warming theory. Can't do it? Why not... isn't this supposed to be a scientifically proven theory?

That's the problem with destroying the data they were supposed to be maintaining.

Lacking the raw data and verification by other scientists (peer review, right?), their data set is nothing more than a meaningless collection of numbers. And since the CRU's data has been critical to "proving" that global warming has been occurring, this sort of tosses the entire theory of global warming into a hat.

Guess what? The science isn't settled after all.

UPDATE: And if you're interested, here is an excellent review of the controversy and why the missing data at the CRU makes such a hugely critical difference.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Read the rest...

Seven Perceptions That Could Sink Obama

Success or failure in politics is often a matter of public perception… reality doesn’t always dictate whether a particular politician will or will not receive support from the public. To that extent, framing the debate is important.

I ran across a list of seven perceptions that some of the public holds and, if the views become prevalent, could well sink PresBo’s popularity and ability to pursue his liberal agenda.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29993.html

PresBo thinks he’s playing with Monopoly money
Essentially, this is the perception that he’s spending far too much money on even the flimsiest of pretexts. At its heart, this is an accurate point of view in many ways… whether or not he actually views it as “Monopoly money” is irrelevant, as it’s clear that he views the amount of money he’s spending as unimportant. Sure, he said he’d “cut the deficit in half” at some point, but look closely at that. He inherited a $400 billion deficit and ballooned it to $1.8 trillion. Even if he cuts that in half, reducing the deficit to the $900 billion range, that’s still more than twice the deficit he inherited. I agree that this attitude, if adopted by a majority of the public, would severely hurt PresBo’s political power.


Too much Leonard Nimoy
This refers to his tendency to propose some arcane theory to solve any problem we have, all the while ignoring dissenters and walking all over everybody in order to achieve his “logical” goal. I don’t view this one as incredibly damaging except in a worst-case scenario.

That’s the Chicago way
This is another incredibly accurate viewpoint, that PresBo and his advisors are mired in Chicago-style “tough guy” politics… that they’re willing to run roughshod over ANYBODY who disagrees with them. They have public fights with Rush Limbaugh, PBS, and even Fox News… all to harass and hurt those who dissent. Some of his advisors have acknowledged this… and are proud of it! If this view prevails it would strip from him his claim to being a “non-partisan style” of President.

He’s a pushover
Think about this one. He talks big, but that’s about it. He warns Iran not to produce nuclear fuel and, when they ignore him, he WARNS THEM AGAIN. He told Dems last summer not to go home for recess without passing a health care bill, but when they did it anyway, nothing happened. They tried to paint Fox News as “not a real news organization,” but Fox still gets access to the President and his staff. This one could be bad for him. Americans don’t LIKE wimps in office… and his bowing to foreign heads of state doesn’t help his image any.

He disparages America
This is another one that could easily be very bad for him. He travels the world apologizing for America, instead of being proud of his country and its accomplishments in the world. His actions do not seem planned to maintain our international prestige, but rather to reduce us to a “just-another-country” status in world politics. In many ways, this ties in with the previous attitude about him being a pushover… they are related. And again, Americans don’t WANT a President who hates his own country and is ashamed of it.

President Pelosi
Personally, I don’t think this one is very likely. IF we started seeing him as having abdicated his role of leadership in Congress and let Pelosi have all that power, then MAYBE it would hurt him. But I don’t think that’s likely to happen… people are too proud of our “historic” President. How could they remain proud of a powerless figurehead? So I don’t think this attitude has legs.

He’s in love with the man in the mirror
Being seen as overly vain would be a detriment, but not a serious one, I think. Sure, he loves to hear himself talk, and there’s always another “historic” and “unprecedented” accomplishment that his press office will announce about him… but it takes ego to be a politician and the most that will happen is people will stop listening to him. I think that’s already happening to some extent… look at the bid for the Olympics and his less than productive visit to China.

To me it seems as if his irresponsible fiscal policies will hurt him the most, followed closely by his apparent compulsion to apologize and bow to anybody who isn’t American. Those are the worst and most likely of the seven listed above.

I could easily add a couple the author of the above piece missed. How about the fact that he ignores what anybody wants except himself? He certainly isn’t concerned about what the VOTERS want… or else he’d drop his ObamaCare bill. Or that he repeatedly says one thing and does another. He wants “bipartisan” politics, but to him that means his opponents support his bills; he will run a transparent administration by rushing bills through as quickly as possible, without letting even Congressmen read them; he won’t hire any registered lobbyists… except for the numerous waivers of that policy which were almost immediately issued. And so forth.

The point is that many of PresBo’s actions are not liked and are even actively resented by many people. As that number grows larger, PresBo will experience more and more problems while in office. He can’t just say the right words, he has to GOVERN in a responsible fashion. Just talking about fiscal responsibility and reducing the national debt isn’t good enough, not while he’s pushing more than one proposal that would INCREASE the national debt substantially.

These are some attitudes to watch for. The more prevalent these views get, the less effective President Spendaholic will be.

Read the rest...

Obama: The Mentality Of Force

I’ve been considering the Obama administration and it’s self-proclaimed priorities, and much of it seems to center on the fact that PresBo and his liberal allies in Congress know what is best for us, like a bizarre form of elected parenthood. They know what is best, and we should all just behave like good little children and do what we are told.

Don’t see it? Let me give you some examples.

Look at PresBo’s first major legislative action, the $787 “stimulus” bill. It had to be rushed through as quickly as possible, even though most of the money wasn’t scheduled to be spent in the first two years. It was criticized for a simple and fundamental reason: borrowing money to spend on pork projects wouldn’t do much to stem rising unemployment. It was unpopular with the voting public, and has only gotten more unpopular as time shows critics were right… unemployment rates are far higher today than PresBo predicted would happen WITHOUT the stimulus.

The philosophy there seemed to be that nobody except PresBo’s liberal crowd truly understood the situation, and the rest of us should just go along with it… or at least shut up.


Or look at PresBo’s second major initiative, Cap & Trade. That bill was approved by the House with barely enough votes to pass, and was also loudly criticized and unpopular with voters. It was supposedly designed to curb global warming… despite the fact that global temperatures have NOT risen over the past decade. New revelations from the ClimateGate (Warmaquiddick?) scandal indicate that there may well have been fraud and deceit practiced by supposed scientists who support global warming theory.

But again, PresBo and Congressional liberals continue to defend the Cap & Tax bill and urge the Senate to pass it. Once more the “we know what is best for you” mentality shines through… blissfully dismissing any doubts and promoting their agenda. Mommy has spoken. Now we should shut up and stay on our side of the car.

And let’s not forget PresBo’s first priority in social engineering: his ObamaCare legislation. Instead of working to fix targeted problems with the best health care system in the world, he wants to toss out the whole shebang and craft a socialist’s dream of a system to inflict on us. The majority of voters are opposed to it and don’t want THIS sort of plan to pass. There has been much evidence disclosed showing many problems that this new system will cause… and the voters realize it.

And if you don’t WANT to purchase health insurance, what happens? You either pay a fine or go to jail: the ultimate “Wait until your FATHER gets home” threat if I’ve ever heard one.

EVERY major initiative proposed so far by the Obama administration is similar in this way: they centralize power for the government to FORCE us to do something that we don’t want to do… but that is “for our own good.”

Many people, myself included, consider this great nation to be a bastion of individual liberty, and we can’t quite reconcile that with PresBo’s insistence on us letting government control every portion of our lives. We don’t WANT a government willing to force anything and everything on us against our wills. So far they’ve done that with a small handful of major initiatives… but what's next?

What ELSE will they decide is “for our own good” and attempt to shove down our throats?

Personally, I am highly uncomfortable with a Federal government that is so willing to dictate, demand, and force compliance with questionable and unpopular programs. Whatever happened to freedom and individualism? And why is this administration trying so hard to kill the very qualities that has made this country great?

In a free country, government should not have the power to FORCE society into their own idealistic mold… especially when that society doesn’t want to be so forced. That they have this power is our own fault for letting them get away with incremental expansions of their power, because the Constitution certainly doesn’t authorize them to do this kind of thing.

Will we correct this situation? It’s time, and past time, to let your Congressmen know that you will not tolerate turning this country into a budding socialist nation. It’s time to tell party leaders that we don’t WANT to be offered an endless parade of liberal candidates who will ignore our massive national debt and continue to spend like drunken sailors on leave. It’s time to stand up and make yourselves heard… because if you don’t do it now, you may not have another chance.

Act now, ladies and gentlemen, or go to your room and wait to be punished.

Read the rest...

Another "Jobs Bill": Didn't The First One Work?

Liberals in Congress, frantic to show some improvement in our nation's job picture before the 2010 mid-term elections, have decided that we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a jobs-creation bill. Again.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117273

This raises an interesting question: If the liberals think that a new jobs-creation bill is needed, does that mean that the previous one (the so-called stimulus bill) has failed? Congressional Democrats and the White House both loudly declare the stimulus program a success, and trumpet the number of jobs supposedly "saved or created" (even though those numbers are suspect at best). In other words, they think it was a success.

But if it was such a success, why all the impetus to do it again?

In my opinion, we simply cannot afford to keep spending money whenever Congressmen decide they need to score a victory for their party so they can get re-elected.

In case you're interested, this author makes the case that we cannot afford to massively increase the deficit at this time.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703932904574511243712388988.html

And THIS author makes the case that we cannot afford NOT to engage in massive deficit spending at this time.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091207/greider2

Which author you believe is correct depends on your underlying beliefs. If you think big government is good and huge government is better; if you believe that our national debt doesn't matter; if you believe in Keynesian economic theories that most economists recognize are worthless... well, then, you will agree with the second author.

Personally, I think massive new spending at this time is probably the worst idea this Congress has had all year long. And that's saying a lot. From a fiscal standpoint, our government cannot AFFORD to spend so much on ObamaCare, cap & trade, and more pork spending under the guise of "jobs creation."

But keep in mind the question I asked initially, and make sure to pose it to your Congressman if he shows the slightest sign of supporting a new "jobs bill." Does that mean the FIRST jobs bill was a failure? Why should we continue to spend far too much money on bills that don't work?


Read the rest...

Thanksgiving: The First Libertarian Holiday

Thanksgiving is here once again, and with it come visions of children's plays with Indians and Pilgrims, complete with little Pilgrim hats made of construction paper. The story told in these plays and learned by public school students at every grade level is a simple one.

The Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock late in 1620. The first winter was harsh, but the colonists worked hard and applied themselves industriously to their own survival. They had help from the local Indian tribes, who helped them learn how to survive. The result was a plentiful harvest in fall 1621, not to mention the first celebration of Thanksgiving.

It's a wonderful story. There's only one problem with it: It isn't true. Oh, it does contain elements of truth. For example, the first winter was harsh, and the local Indian tribes did help the colonists learn how to survive, what to plant and how to prepare the food. But the 1621 harvest was not bountiful. In fact, famine haunted the fledgling colony.


When the colonists first landed, they signed something called the Mayflower Compact. Most of us have heard this document praised as an early social contract helping different people to live together. What most of us never learned was that it was also an experiment in socialism.

The Mayflower Compact required that "all profits and benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing or any other means" were placed in the common stock of the colony. Further, it required that "all such persons as are of this colony are to have their meat, drink, apparel and all provisions out of this common stock." People were required to put into the common stock everything they could, and take out only what they needed.

William Bradford, governor of the colony at the time, wrote the "History of Plymouth Plantation." In it, he wrote that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Since "the strong, or man of parts, had no more division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak," the strong men simply refused to work, and the amount of food produced was never adequate.

In fact, the colony went hungry for years as strong men refused to work hard, and theft of crops still in the ground ran rampant. Bradford wrote that the colony was riddled with "corruption and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

The harvests of 1621 and 1622 were adequate enough so that "all had their hungry bellies filled," but that did not last. Deaths from malnutrition continued into the next year.

But in 1623, something changed. Bradford reported, "Instead of famine now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." By 1624, the colony was producing so much food that it began exporting corn.

What caused this change?

After the poor harvest of 1622, the colony brainstormed for a way to raise more corn and obtain a better crop. The solution, like the Thanksgiving story told today, was simple. In 1623, Bradford "gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit."

The socialistic experiment that had failed them was abandoned and replaced with capitalism. That turned the colonists away from failure and forward into success and growth. And this move away from socialism, along with the resulting prosperity, is what we truly celebrate today. It is easy to see why I call Thanksgiving the first Libertarian holiday.

Thanksgiving, far from being the simple and uninspiring story of a group of people learning how to farm, is actually a celebration of what has made America itself great. It is the story of people working together by working for themselves first, and in so doing, improving the standard of living for everyone. These are the American ideas we hold dear.

As you sit down to your table laden with turkey, dressing and pumpkin pie, remember the true story of Thanksgiving, and what it means to all.

UPDATE: I realize I didn't post any links supporting this one; mainly that's because these facts are buried in history tomes and scholarly works... and I don't mean school books. About all I can online find is different opinion pieces based upon this information, so I offer one of those to you. This one deals with the same subject in passing as it makes a different point.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/26/pilgrims_planted_the_seeds_of_americas_abundance_99321.html

Early on, the Pilgrims grasped a basic point about economic motivation. In 1623, they rejected their initial system of collectivism; each family got its own plot of land. Bradford called it "a very good success, for it makes all hands very industrious." They had learned "the vanity of that conceit of Plato's . . . that the taking away of property and bringing community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing."

UPDATE: I located a site containing excerpts from William Bradford's "History of Plymouth Plantation", assuming you're interested.
http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/14-bra.html

All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expecte any. So they begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Gov[erno]r (with the advise of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to goe on in the generall way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance), and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other ways would have been by any means the Gov[erno]r or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now wente willingly., into the field, and tooke their little-ones with them to set corne, which before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.'

UPDATE: And if you really WANT the full text of Bradford's "History of Plymouth Plantation", try here. I warn you, it's long, mostly boring, and the relevant portions are buried between unrelated entries.
http://www.mith2.umd.edu/eada/html/display.php?docs=bradford_history.xml

Read the rest...

Where Is The Lie On Global Warming?

Global warming is something I’ve been watching for years… not the so-called “fact” that man is causing our world to heat up and explode, but rather the political circus that has replaced true scientific inquiry.

For those of you tuning in late, apparently politicians have decided that the science on man-caused global warming is “settled,” and therefore there is a consensus that global warming is a fact that must be corrected by draconian laws passed by government. Against you, me, and our freedoms… all in the name of saving the planet, of course.

Forget that thousands of scientists disagree… we have a politically-mandated consensus.

But what do we do with inconvenient facts that aren’t in line with global warming theory? For example, what about the fact that global temperature has NOT increased over the past ten years? None of the global-warming models predicted this, and none of the global warming scientists know why it happened… but they assure us it’s just a temporary aberration that will be followed by massive temperature increases… etc, etc.


And meanwhile, most scientists who author a study contradicting global warming orthodoxy are ignored, ridiculed, and refused the right to publish in the best journals. This sounds a lot like the old “scientific tribunals” rejecting new theories and persecuting the scientist who dared to be unorthodox.

Yes, Galileo, the earth does revolve around the sun and not vice versa, no matter what the Roman Catholic Church said. And the scientists who doubt the whole man-caused global warming theory are still correct, no matter what the political orthodoxy says.

And now some new evidence has been produced, and it has little to do with science. It appears as if a hacker broke into the computer system over at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia and downloaded a TON of documents on global warming over the years. Little of the information concerns itself very much with science, though some DOES detail the tricks and hoaxes they’ve perpetrated to support their theory.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

They just can’t explain why the earth isn’t warming…

These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, "where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." They still can't account for it; see a new article in Der Spiegel: "Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out." I don't know where these people got their scientific education, but where I come from, if your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, it's wrong.

They have used statistical tricks to show temperature increases that never really occurred.

More seriously, in one e-mail, a prominent global warming alarmist admits to using a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the "trick" consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature "proxies" from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward "hockey stick" slope.

They tried hard to keep their data secret so they wouldn’t be exposed.

Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data, the e-mails show CRU scientists conspiring to evade legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, for their underlying data. It's a basic rule of science that you don't just get to report your results and ask other people to take you on faith. You also have to report your data and your specific method of analysis, so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it. Yet that is precisely what the CRU scientists have refused.

And they tried to gimmick the peer-review system to keep dissenting reports from being published and considered legitimate.

But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

And that is precisely what we find.

In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:

I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."

This behavior should be criminal, seeing as how many governments are attempting to pass laws and set policies based upon this fraudulent data. One thing it certainly is NOT is scientific… because science WELCOMES dissent in order to arrive at the truth. Global warming supporters seem to want to hide the truth to protect their phony-baloney jobs.

That’s the current global warming scandal. If you’d like to read a little more about it, you can find a good article over at the Telegraph.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

The whole global warming movement is a scam, and laws such as PresBo’s Cap & Trade are not only unnecessary, they’re ineffective and actually will be harmful to our country. And they know it… otherwise, why lie about it and try so hard to keep the truth from getting out?

So, where IS the lie on global warming… that it DOES exist or that it doesn’t?

You be the judge.

Read the rest...

Admin: Thanksgiving Week

I want to apologize for not doing much in the way of blogging over the past few days. We have relatives in for the holiday week, and I'm not able to spend much time in front of the computer right now. I will definitely post a Thanksgiving entry, and will try harder to post something at least once a day.

Once again, I apologize... and I wish you all a happy Thanksgiving Day.


Read the rest...

Can Senate Pass ObamaCare?

That's the big question on everybody's mind, isn't it... Is it possible for the Dems to pass their ObamaCare bill in the Senate? Liberals will reply heatedly that of course it is, and assert we're just being silly, engaging in wishful thinking, or maybe even cast aspersions upon our character for daring to think otherwise. Depending on the individual, of course.

But when we look at what happened Saturday, we find that things aren't so rosy after all. After all the debating and amending is over, liberals need 60 votes to pass their ObamaCare bill, and they have... precisely 60 votes in their caucus. Assuming the Republicans remain unanimously opposed, liberals need ALL of the Democrat Senators to vote "yea."

On the Republican side, Olympia Snowe is still a wild card. She voted against opening debate, that's true, but she may still vote in favor of closing debate at a future time.

On the Democrat side, let's look at the swing votes.


Joe Leiberman is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. He voted to begin debate, but said that he is opposed to the so-called "public option" and will vote "nay" on any plan that includes one.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/1109/Lieberman_holds_fast_on_public_option.html?showall

Blanche Lincoln has stated that she also opposes the "public option," and added that she would not vote in favor of the bill as currently written. Mary Landrieu said much pretty much the same thing.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29795.html

The fourth swing vote belongs to Ben Nelson, who said that he also would vote no on the bill as it currently is written. He doesn't like the "opt-out" plan but might support an "opt-in" version. Also, he thinks that the bill doesn't do enough to control costs.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/1109/Nelson_would_vote_no_on_bill_as_is.html?showall

So there you have it, four Democrats who basically oppose a public option and say they won't vote for it. And the extreme-liberal wing has already signaled they'll vote against any bill WITHOUT a public option.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29798.html

So, what to do? Is it possible for the centrist Democrats and the rabid left-wing Democrats to reach a single plan they can all support?

Personally, I think that it is more than possible for a bill to pass, I think it is likely. And it has little to do with what Senators can "support." It all comes down to the carrot and the stick.

In the House, several representatives were essentially bribed to vote yes, and what they were offered had little to do with healthcare. Basically, the party in power has a great ability to offer funding for unrelated pet projects in order to convince a realcitrant Congressman to vote "yea"... and they're not shy about doing it.

On the "stick" side of the equation, anybody caucusing with the Democrats who opposes this bill could see choice committee memberships pass them by... punishment for not toeing the party line. And Blanche Lincoln is facing a strong Democrat challenger in next year's election... one whom the party has said they may well endorse INSTEAD of Lincoln if she votes "nay."

I think the combination of rewards for conformity and punishments for opposition will prove too powerful for most, if not all, of the Democrats now in opposition to the bill. They'll end up voting in favor of closure, giving the liberals their 60 votes.

I also think that many of the Democrats who DO vote "yea" will face angry voters next year and end up back in civilian life. But that's beside the point.

Don't pin your hopes on those four Democrats who are opposed... they may not have the stomach for this fight.

UPDATE: It seems as if the Washington Post agrees with the majority of my analysis.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/22/AR2009112202229.html

Read the rest...

Dems Drooling To Spend Bailout Funds

Let's assume, for the purposes of discussion, that there are approximately $200 billion from the TARP fund that won't be used. PresBo wants to "pay down" the deficit. The GOP wants to "give it back" to the taxpayers. So, what do Congressional Democrats want to do with it? Spend it on various and sundry pet projects.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29749.html

But Democrats are salivating over the possibility of $200 billion in unspent money.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson of Connecticut wants dough to fund job-creation legislation. Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, the powerful chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, wants to direct $2 billion of repaid Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to loans for unemployed homeowners so they can avoid foreclosure. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California admits that “there’s a good bit of interest” in spreading the money around to various economic projects.

And Senate Democrats want to put a big chunk — say, $40 billion — toward loans to small businesses.

Amazing. Is it any wonder that people are perceiving Democrats as being far too willing to spend money? With record high deficits, Dems have been PRETENDING to be fiscally prudent... remember the whole fiction of "paying for" the cost of ObamaCare with spending cuts and tax increases? But like a heroin addict... they respond predictably when you wave a little of the stuff they crave under their noses.

Thanks but no thanks, Dems. Do something right for once, okay?


Read the rest...

NY Terror Trials Are Bad Idea

I haven't said anything yet about the terrorists being tried in civilian courts, but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion.

Trying the terrorist suspects in civilian court is an extremely bad idea for a variety of reasons. Let's look at the most obvious first: Miranda.

It is a fact that cases get tossed every day because the suspect wasn't properly mirandized and allowed access to an attorney. These defendants... weren't. Personally, I wouldn't expect soldiers on a battlefield to have to do that, but maybe that's just me. One scenario would be that the judge involved tosses the confessions and a bunch more stuff because they weren't mirandized and provided access to a lawyer. An even worse scenario would be that the cases are tossed entirely because the defendants were DENIED ACCESS to lawyers during their multi-year incarceration... and the defndants walk.

The big danger here is that the civilian courts will essentialy set free guilty terrorists... all because the soldiers who caught and interrogated them didn't operate by criminal court guidelines.


Now don't get me wrong, I have long maintained that depriving suspects of representation increases the likelihood that someone wrongly accused would spend years in jail... but that's not the issue today.

In the first sign that the fears of myself and MANY others aren't just paranoid ravings... the defense attorneys are already salivating over change of venue motions. And they are using the words of President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to make their case.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/expert_bigmouth_prez_helps_defense_ZtW0f2CxjGnJ3b5bnK4oUO#ixzz0XKfzoB8z

Obama put his foot in his mouth, legally if not politically, speaking about 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, when he told NBC: "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."

Even more damaging, prominent legal scholar Jonathan Turley says, was Holder's statement indicating the trial was being held in New York for symbolic reasons.

"Those are highly prejudicial statements and they further show a motivation in locating the trial in this particular venue," said Turley, who has worked on terror cases.

"I would be surprised if the trial could be held there. Holder has made it much more difficult with his press conference."

So far, we're seeing presumptions of guilt, implications that the trial results are fixed, and claims that the trial venue was chosen for political reasons DETRIMENTAL to the welfare of the defendants. Yeah, any defense attorney would love to have these kinds of things on record.

And this is just the precursor, people. These trials are going to be circuses... thanks to PreBo's bone-headed decision to try terrorists in criminal courts.

I will talk more about this in the future, I'm sure, but right now let's just say that PresBo's actions are questionable at best, and extremely damaging to the US at worst.

Thanks, PB... is THIS what you meant by "Change We Can Believe In?"

Read the rest...

"Jobs Saved Or Created" Has NO Credibility Left

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116576

It's official... the number of jobs "saved or created" that is being trumpeted by the White House has NO credibility at all. It's all a giant guessing game designed so that PresBo can claim a political victory where one doesn't exist.

What am I talking about? I'm talking about the massive problems, overstatements, and outright fabrications in their data. The latest example comes from a GAO report obtained by ABC news. According to this government report, many jobs were reported saved by agencies who spent no money, and thousands of projects spent hundreds of millions yet created no jobs.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gao-50000-jobs-stimulus-projects-spent-money/story?id=9117506

The GAO report comes on the heels of weeks of reports, including some by ABC News, that question the validity of the job creation numbers the administration's economic recovery board says were generated by the stimulus plan.

- The new GAO report finds that 58,386 of the more than 640,000 "saved or created" jobs listed on recovery.gov are from stimulus projects where no money has yet been spent.

- On the flip side, the report finds nearly 10,000 projects that report spending a total of $965 million without creating any jobs at all.

The report also raises questions about how closely the contracts are being monitored. Twenty-five percent of the more than 130,000 primary contracts listed were not marked as having been reviewed by any government agency, and less than 1 percent of subcontracts were reviewed.

And the GAO says that estimating the impact of the stimulus is impossible... no matter what Obama tells you.

On Thursday, the GAO's Gene Dodaro will testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

"Neither the recipients nor analysts can identify with certainty the impact of the Recovery Act because of the inability to compare the observed outcome with the unobserved, counterfactual scenario in which the stimulus does not take place," Dodaro says in draft testimony prepared for the hearing that was obtained Wednesday by ABC News.

Oh... and the guy responsible for tracking the effects of the stimulus package admits they can't verify the accuracy of the numbers.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29674.html

The chief federal oversight official for the stimulus program said in a letter Wednesday that he can’t certify whether the number of jobs “created or saved” by stimulus funds is accurate.

Recovery Board Chairman Earl Devaney was responding to a request for information by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. In a letter to Issa dated Nov. 17, Devaney wrote, “Your letter specifically asks if I am able to certify that the number of jobs reported as created/saved on Recovery.gov is accurate and auditable. No, I am not able to make this certification.”

The Obama administration claimed that it saved or created at least 1 million jobs this year. But errors in the stimulus job creation data have become a political hot potato, as the administration has been hit by news reports revealing that data it posted on recovery.gov includes jobs allegedly created in congressional districts that don’t exist.

As I've been saying for a while, now, White House claims of how many jobs were "created or saved" ARE MEANINGLESS... just numbers designed to make PresBo look good.

Politically motivated to make PresBo look good... that sounds like most of his Presidency so far, doesn't it?

UPDATE: Oh, and after proudly proclaiming 640,000 jobs "created or saved" and using that to shore up his political creds on the stimulus, what does he say now about all the errors in the numbers he used to MAKE this claim of success? They're a "side-issue."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/18/obama-calls-stimulus-data-errors-issue-says-focus-job-growth/

Read the rest...

Interest On US Debt = $4.8 Trillion

Remember when PresBo projected the budget deficits for the next decade based upon his profligate spending habits? According to those projections, the national debt will increase by $9 trillion over the next decade. And more than half of that debt we accumulate, $4.8 trillion to be precise, will be interest payments on our existing debt.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/19/news/economy/debt_interest/index.htm

Here's a new way to think about the U.S. government's epic borrowing: More than half of the $9 trillion in debt that Uncle Sam is expected to build up over the next decade will be interest.

More than half. In fact, $4.8 trillion.

If that's hard to grasp, here's another way to look at why that's a problem.

In 2015 alone, the estimated interest due - $533 billion - is equal to a third of the federal income taxes expected to be paid that year, said Charles Konigsberg, chief budget counsel of the Concord Coalition, a deficit watchdog group.

Ask any debt counselor... when you have to borrow money so you can make payments on existing debt, this is a bad sign of impending financial doom. And that's precisely what we're doing. And as bad as it looks now, it will probably get worse.

But accumulating any more interest on what the United States owes at this point is like extreme sport: dangerous.

All the more so because interest rates will rise when private sector borrowers return to the debt market and compete with the government for capital. At that point, the country's interest payments could jack up very fast.

"When interest rates rise even a small amount, the interest payments go up a lot because of the size of the debt," Konigsberg said.

The Congressional Budget Office, which made the $4.8 trillion forecast, already baked some increase in rates into the cake. But there is always a chance those estimates may prove too conservative.

PresBo has been talking a bit recently about having to reduce deficits, though it's clear from his spending habits that he doesn't really mean it. The problem is that the yearly deficits aren't the whole problem. Sure, reducing the deficits would help, but I'm not sure that there is such a thing as a "sustainable deficit" anymore. We are so far in debt that interest on that debt is consuming an ever-larger portion of our budget... and it will only get worse as the debt increases.

We need to do more than just "reduce the deficit"... our government needs to start spending LESS than it collects in tax revenue and start PAYING DOWN THE DEBT! We can't keep going deeper and deeper into debt forever... even a little rational thought should be sufficient to realize that!

It's time and past time to make the hard decisions to start reducing the size and cost of government to the point where we can start paying down the debt. We're not at the danger point yet, but it would be a REALLY good idea to act BEFORE that danger point is reached.

Read the rest...

Senate Democrats Finally Unveil A Bill

Well, the Senate Democrats have finally agreed on an ObamaCare bill. They have named it the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act".
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/health/policy/19health.html?_r=1&hp

You can read the bill itself here:
http://documents.nytimes.com/senate-health-care-bill#p=1

And you can see a comparison of the House and Senate bills here:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/19/us/politics/1119-plan-differences.html


My central objection to this plan is pretty simple, and applies to both the House and Senate bills. Both bills seek to "solve problems" by forcing every person in the country into a system devised by the party currently in power. They want to assume an unprecedented amount of control over our lives, and this I oppose. Adamantly. There is no justification for government-control of the private sector, and I don't WANT to take part in their program.

But that's the part that they ignore entirely. The half of the country that does NOT want to take part in the new system are out of luck... we will have no choice.

Don't get too comfortable with a government willing to lay down the law, force you to behave as they wish, and give you no choice. Those are bad things, and we need to be concerned what will be next.

So, this "unveiling," though the press is gushing about it, changes little. We've known for a while basically what the Senate plan would look like; it was a massive compromise measure designed to accomplish one thing... win 60 votes. They don't have those votes yet, and the arm-twisting and cajolery has already begun.

Read the rest...

How Government Boosted Unemployment

Some economists believe that the Obama White House and liberal "stimulus" efforts have actually increased our unemployment rate over where it would otherwise be.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_stimulus_for_unemployment_Q082yIXFBCIxk41lqXXt6H

When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Extending unemployment benefits from 26 to 79 weeks was guaranteed to leave many more people unemployed for many more months.

And longer unemployment translates to higher unemployment rates -- because the relatively small numbers of newly unemployed are added to stubbornly large numbers of those who lost their jobs more than six months ago.

The unemployment rate has not been rising because of growing numbers of newly jobless people. Indeed, initial claims for unemployment benefits are way down. And the number of unfilled private job openings increased by 9.3 percent from the end of April to the end of September.

The unemployment rate has been rising because unprecedented numbers of those who became unemployed six to 19 months ago are remaining "on the dole" until their benefits are nearly exhausted.

The White House recently made the mysterious claim of having "saved" 640,329 jobs, at a cost of only $531,250 per job ($340 billion).

In reality, the evidence is overwhelming that the February stimulus bill has added at least two percentage points to the unemployment rate. If Congress and the White House hadn't tried so hard to stimulate long-term unemployment, the US unemployment rate would now be about 8 percent and falling rather than more than 10 percent and -- rising.

The author of this piece makes his case rather well, and provides supporting information to prove his points. I recommend this read.

Read the rest...

Obama's Home Teleprompter Breaks Down

Here's a video news report from the Onion News Network, describing a malfunction with Obama's home teleprompter. If you want a chuckle this morning, watch this video.


Obama's Home Teleprompter Malfunctions During Family Dinner


UPDATE: For those of you who didn't know, and apparently some of you didn't, the Onion is a news PARODY site that relies heavily on satire and humor.


Read the rest...

Dems Don't Get It On ObamaCare

Here's the story. In recent elections and polls, all agree that independent voters, who helped win the Presidency for Obama last year, are rapidly turning away from the Democrats because of their massive spending agenda. I'll give them credit, the Democrats are finally accepting this as fact instead of propaganda... but they completely miss what it means. In THEIR minds, this mass defection isn't because independents don't LIKE ObamaCare and other massive spending programs, rather it's merely because they don't understand it well enough. The solution? Keep the programs but change the message.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29646.html

Since then, however, a flurry of new polls makes clear that Democrats are facing deeper problems with independents—the swing voters who swung dramatically toward the party in 2006 and 2008 but who now are registering deep unease with the amount of spending and debt called for under Obama's agenda in an era of one-party rule in Washington.

Andrew Myers, who polled for Democrats in Virginia House of Delegates races this year, said his analysis of exit polls indicated that voters had come to see Democrats as a party of high spending — too willing to make a rush for the pocketbooks and unable to effectively articulate how their health care reform push benefited independents, many of whom already have insurance plans.

“This is what’s particularly heartbreaking: There is a real sense that no one in Congress is standing up for them,” said Myers. “It’s a real problem for messaging for us.”

Messaging? MESSAGING?


News flash, Myers, you don't have a MESSAGING problem, you have a SPENDING problem! The Democrats are acting like teenagers with stolen credit cards, and they just don't get it that most people DON'T LIKE THAT! Changing the message (i.e. lying about it) won't change the underlying problem... and it IS a problem.

And the thing about fooling people is that, eventually, they catch on...

Y'know, it'd be nice if our elected officials actually CARED about what the American people wanted, and stopped thinking in terms of political benefit for themselves and their party!

This massive deficit spending that Obama and liberals in Congress want to engage in is BAD, and no amount of rebranding will change that.

Read the rest...

More "Jobs Saved Or Created" Troubles

PresBo's "jobs saved or created" numbers took two more hits today.

First, the White House bowed to inevitability and "voluntarily" removed 60,000 jobs from the total claimed because of obvious and glaring errors... such as $42,000 creating or saving 5,000 jobs. And keep in mind that the numbers had been scrubbed so hard that the people responsible had "dishpan hands"... and yet they missed obvious problems like THAT?
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/abc-news-exclusive-obama-administration-slashed-60000-jobs/story?id=9095621

The Obama administration, under fire for inflating job growth from the $787 billion stimulus plan, slashed over 60,000 jobs from its most recent report on the program because the reporting outlets had submitted "unrealistic data," according to a document obtained by ABC News.

The Office of Management and Budget document shows that before an Oct. 30 progress report on the program the administration asked the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board to remove information from 12 stimulus recipients that contained "unrealistic data," including "unrealistic job data." (Read the document here.)

One recipient – Talladega County of Alabama – claimed that 5,000 jobs had been saved or created from only $42,000 in stimulus funds.

Second, it appears as if quite a few of the "stimulus success stories" over at recovery.gov happened in Congressional Districts that don't exist.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story?id=9097853

Here's a stimulus success story: In Arizona's 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that's what the Web site set up by the Obama administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.

There's one problem, though: There is no 15th congressional district in Arizona; the state has only eight districts.

And ABC News has found many more entries for projects like this in places that are incorrectly identified.

Late Monday, officials with the Recovery Board created to track the stimulus spending, said the mistakes in crediting nonexistent congressional districts were caused by human error.

"We report what the recipients submit to us," said Ed Pound, Communications Director for the Board.

Maybe they should pay more attention to simple idiot-checks to catch obviously bad data... as a programmer, I know about the necessity of doing this.

More evidence that the "jobs created or saved" figures are hopelessly inflated... and hence useless.

Read the rest...

Question On ObamaCare Haste

I have a question concerning the heavily liberal push to pass ObamaCare. This is a question that has puzzled me for a while, now. You see, the Democrats are pushing hard to pass the bill... and are telling Congressional Democrats that passing ObamaCare will build support for them in the 2010 elections.

This is the part that puzzles me. WHY do they think this? Every opinion poll in the past months has shown declining support for ObamaCare bills. The newest Washington Post/ABC News poll, for example, shows the country is pretty evenly split with 49% opposing and 48% supporting ObamaCare passage.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/17/AR2009111700021.html

In the new poll, 48 percent say they support the proposed changes; 49 percent are opposed.

The new poll provides ammunition for both advocates and opponents of reform. For opponents, a clear area of public concern centers on cost -- 52 percent say an altered system would probably make their own care more expensive, and 56 percent see the overall cost of health care in the country going up as a result.

Few see clear benefits in exchange for higher expenses. Rather, there has been a small but significant increase in the number (now 37 percent) who anticipate their care deteriorating under a revamped system, putting that number in line with opinion in July 1994, just before President Bill Clinton's health-care reform efforts fizzled.

Among those with insurance, three times as many continue to see worse rather than better coverage options ahead (39 to 13 percent), and fewer than half of those who lack insurance see better options under a changed system. Six in 10 see it as "very" or "somewhat" likely that many private insurers would be forced out of business by a government-sponsored insurance plan, a potential result that GOP leaders frequently warn about.

Given all this, how can the Democrats believe that PASSING ObamaCare will actually INCREASE support for their party? Doing so will immediately alienate half the voters... many of whom are indpendent voters who supported Obama last year.

This is a serious question, and if you have an answer for me I'd like to read it. HOW can supposedly intelligent men and women believe something that is so obviously untrue? HOW can they believe that forcing half the country to do something they don't want to do will INCREASE their support?

This is not a debate on the merits or shortfalls of ObamaCare, it's an honest question.

Anybody willing to try and answer it?

Read the rest...

CMS Report Affirms CBO Report On ObamaCare

If you'll remember, yesterday I mentioned the CBO report showing that the House ObamaCare bill would increase health costs... among other things.
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2009/11/cbo-report-house-bill-reduces-medicare.html

Now the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has also released a report... one that, in many ways, affirms the CBO report.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/CMS_House_bill_increases_health_care_costs_.html

“With the exception of the proposed reductions in Medicare payment updates for institutional providers, the provisions of H.R. 3962 would not have a significant impact on future health care cost growth rates. In addition, the longer-term viability of the Medicare update reductions is doubtful,” the report said.

In other words, outside of Medicare payment cuts to hospitals, the bill doesn’t curb increasing health care costs. And even the Medicare payment cuts will be difficult to sustain.

The analysis is more bad news for Democrats, who are facing increasing criticism that their reforms don’t do enough to control costs. Republicans released the analysis and jumped on the news.

You can find the link to the report here:
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/OACT_Memorandum_on_Financial_Impact_of_H_R__3962__11-13-09_.pdf

And, of course, the White House took issue with this report and fired back.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/DeParle_pushes_back_on_CMS_report.html

"This is not something they normally do," DeParle said of the study by the Chief Actuary office at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. "It is an interesting analysis but it is pretty speculative though of what the impact will be on providers and beneficiaries. Our recent experience would indicate something quite different."

Yeah, pretty much political spin on an unfavorable report.

Keep your eyes on reality and one foot firmly on the ground. And if somebody offers to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, well...

Read the rest...

CBO Report: House Bill Reduces Medicare Benefits

I want to start this one by reminding you of two facts. First, the major assurances we get about ObamaCare is that it won't increase the deficit, it will decrease costs, and medicare benefits won't be reduced. Second, House Republicans wanted to hold the vote on the House bill until the CBO report was issued. Keep those two facts in mind.

The CBO report on the House ObamaCare bill has been issued. It finds that medicare spending would be slashed, benefits would be curtailed, and many doctors/hospitals would stop taking Medicare patients.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33946165/ns/politics-washington_post

A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending — one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system — would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.

Congress could intervene to avoid such an outcome, but "so doing would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings" than is currently projected, according to the analysis by the chief actuary for the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. That would wipe out a big chunk of the financing for the health-care reform package, which is projected to cost $1.05 trillion over the next decade.

And remember when supporters casually dismissed fears that the influx of new patients would swamp the system? The CBO report actually strengthens the position of ObamaCare opponents.

More generally, the report questions whether the country's network of doctors and hospitals would be able to cope with the effects of a reform package expected to add more than 30 million people to the ranks of the insured, many of them through Medicaid, the public health program for the poor.

In the face of greatly increased demand for services, providers are likely to charge higher fees or take patients with better-paying private insurance over Medicaid recipients, "exacerbating existing access problems" in that program, according to the report from Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Though the report does not attempt to quantify that impact, Foster writes: "It is reasonable to expect that a significant portion of the increased demand for Medicaid would not be realized."

So when you hear the bland reassurances, remember the reality.

In its most recent analysis of the House bill, the CBO noted that Medicare spending per beneficiary would have to grow at roughly half the rate it has over the past two decades to meet the measure's savings targets, a dramatic reduction that many budget and health policy experts consider unrealistic.

"This report confirms what virtually every independent expert has been saying: [House] Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi's health-care bill will increase costs, not decrease them," said Rep. Dave Camp (Mich.), the senior Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee. "This is a stark warning to every Republican, Democrat and independent worried about the financial future of this nation."

ObamaCare will take a decent health care system with some flaws and turn it into a government-run disaster on wheels. Once again I must say, this is NOT change I can believe in.

Read the rest...

ObamaCare News Roundup

Here are some more news stories and opinion pieces about ObamaCare that you should be aware of.

What ObamaCare will do to insurance
This is an opinion piece written by a registered Democrat in New York. He says when NY mandated coverage, prices went up, and all he could afford was hospital-only coverage. ObamaCare would remove that coverage and leave him paying a yearly fine.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574527493169603118.html

Majority Says Health Care NOT Government Responsibility
For the first time since 2001, a majority of the US says that it is NOT government's responsibility to provide us with health insurance. Gallup found that 50% said no and 47% said yes, down from a high of 69% yes in 2006. My personal opinion is that the drop in support is a direct result of the details in the proposals being pushed in Congress.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124253/Say-Health-Coverage-Not-Gov-Responsibility.aspx


ObamaCare Bill Contains 69% Increase In Capital Gains Tax
For some strange reason, liberals in Congress think that increasing capital gains taxes is a good idea in a time of economic malaise... even though, historically, capital gains tax increases have been associated with decreases in economic activity.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/surprise_house_health_care_bill_includes_a_69_increase_in_capital_gains_tax/

Reconciliation Will Kill Stupak Rider
The Stupak Rider was the amendment to the House bill that said federal dollars can't be spent on abortions... a principle already in effect. IF the Senate has to pursue reconciliation to get their bill passed, that will be one of the first things to go. Why? Because it will never pass muster as a BUDGET matter.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/Reconciliation_could_kill_Stupak_rider.html

Is ObamaCare In Trouble In The Senate?
This is a pretty good opinion piece on the difficulties facing ObamaCare in the Senate. We've always known Senate passage would be harder, simply because their majority is much smaller than in the House.
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/11/12/is-obamacare-in-trouble-in-the-senate/

I hope you find these articles entertaining and/or informative.

Read the rest...

Former Inspector General Cleared of Wrongdoing

Do you remember the case of Inspector General Gerald Walpin, who was fired from his job by President Obama after he discovered wrongdoing by prominent PresBo supporters? Apparently an investigation has concluded he did nothing wrong, and he is now suing to get his job back.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115726

Walpin was inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service and dug into the use of federal money by St. HOPE and Johnson while Johnson was running for mayor in 2008.

The organization, founded by Johnson, runs schools, a development company and other outreaches, including an urban program. Johnson actively supervised its operations until stepping down to run in campaign for mayor.

Walpin's investigations alleged St. HOPE used federal money to run personal errands for Johnson and to improperly pay for salaries for school workers.

Lawrence G. Brown, the acting U.S. attorney at the time, reviewed Walpin's allegations and said there wasn't anything criminal, so he agreed to a settlement in the civil arena that involved repaying about $400,000 in AmeriCorps funding.

Walpin publicly criticized the result, saying the decision against criminal charges followed "political considerations" and Brown responded with claims Walpin overstepped his responsibilities.

An investigation was launched by the Council on the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and Obama, not waiting for the results, fired Walpin. Obama explained Walpin was "confused" and "disoriented" but Walpin immediately appeared on television, including the Glenn Beck show on Fox, responding quickly, accurately and coherently to a long list of instructions and questions, undermining Obama's claim.

The Bee report also said federal officials have closed the investigation into St. HOPE without charges. The allegations were that those linked to the case deliberately deleted e-mails even though they knew they were being sought by investigators.

In a separate report, it appears is if Walpin’s replacement received a request from AmericaCorps (the agency he was supposed to be overseeing) to shred several documents… and he complied.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57052

The acting inspector general of AmeriCorps said he shredded White House documents at the request of an agency press spokeswoman that pertained to the controversial firing of the previous inspector general, who was ousted after investigating a political ally of President Obama.

The e-mail message from agency spokeswoman Ranit Schmelzer seemed urgent, as she wrote: “WH documents were sent in error. Can you please destroy them? And can you confirm you receive this e-mail?” Acting IG Kenneth Bach responded 13 minutes later writing, “Confirmed, documents were shredded.”The email exchanges between Bach and Schmelzer, as well as other documents pertaining to the firing of the AmeriCorps inspector general, were obtained by CNSNews.com through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

The documents referenced in the Bach-Schmelzer email exchange included a draft of a letter to be signed by President Obama that would be sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to inform her that Obama was firing Gerald Walpin as inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), which runs AmeriCorps, and also a set of talking points to be used in explaining to the media why Walpin was being fired.

In my opinion there is strong circumstantial evidence to make a case of wrongful termination against the government. Keep in mind that Walpin was supposed to be an investigator operating INDEPENDANTLY from political control… such as from the White House. It appears as if he may have been fired for taking actions and positions deemed inconvenient by the White House.

This one isn’t finished yet, folks. Let’s keep an eye on it to see what happens in the future.

Read the rest...

US Seizes Four Mosques In Anti-Terrorism Probe

In what is probably the largest anti-terrorism bust on record, the US seized four mosques and a NY skyscraper owned by a Muslim non-profit who, the government claims, funnels money back to Iran.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33894877/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

Federal prosecutors Thursday took steps to seize four U.S. mosques and a Fifth Avenue skyscraper owned by a nonprofit Muslim organization long suspected of being secretly controlled by the Iranian government.

In what could prove to be one of the biggest counterterrorism seizures in U.S. history, prosecutors filed a civil complaint in federal court seeking the forfeiture of more than $500 million in assets of the Alavi Foundation and an alleged front company.

The assets include Islamic centers in New York City, Maryland, California and Houston, more than 100 acres in Virginia, and a 36-story office tower in New York.

This was an administrative action only, authorities did not raid any mosques. But they do claim illegal activities, and so took steps to seize ownership of assets.

There were no raids Thursday as part of the forfeiture action. The government is simply required to post notices of the civil complaint on the property.

Prosecutors said the Alavi Foundation, through a front company known as Assa Corp., illegally funneled millions in rental income back to Iran's state-owned Bank Melli. Bank Melli has been accused by a U.S. Treasury official of providing support for Iran's nuclear program, and it is illegal in the United States to do business with the bank.

The U.S. has long suspected the foundation was an arm of the Iranian government; a 97-page complaint details involvement in foundation business by several top Iranian officials, including the deputy prime minister and ambassadors to the United Nations.

"For two decades, the Alavi Foundation's affairs have been directed by various Iranian officials, including Iranian ambassadors to the United Nations, in violation of a series of American laws," U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said in a statement.

And of course, muslim reaction is guarded and wary, especially coming as it does so soon after the Ft. Hood incident.
http://www.news10.net/news/story.aspx?storyid=70308&catid=2

In the wake of a federal seizure attempt against a Muslim organization's U.S. holdings, local Muslim community leaders expressed concern Thursday about the implications of what they called an unprecedented move by the government.

"The Muslim community believes it will have a chilling effect on the First Amendment rights to exercise your religion," Council on American Islamic Relations executive director Basim Elkarra said.

"I think the community will watch this closely and especially coming at a bad time right after Fort Hood, where our community is concerned about backlash," Elkarra said. "Now our mosques are being seized."

I understand the fear, but religion is not a shield that can be used to protect ourselves from the consequences of illegal activities. If the seized properties were being used for illegal purposes, then tough. If you don’t want to pay the price, don’t break the law. If, however, the allegations cannot be proven, then the property should be returned promptly.

I am waiting to see what evidence is disclosed as the case advances. Right now we’re at the initial stages, and we don’t know what merit the allegations have. So now we wait… and watch.

Read the rest...

ACORN Suing Federal Government

It seems that ACORN is suing the Federal Government in order to get their funding back.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29436.html

A non-profit organization filed a lawsuit against the federal government Thursday morning, seeking to overturn a law stopping the flow of federal funds to ACORN.

The suit, filed in federal court in New York, claims that bills passed by the House and Senate to defund the group qualify as bills of attainder, legislation that unfairly targets one group. Such bills are unconstitutional.

The suit will seek to restore funding and roll-back the ban, which was passed as part of the legislative branch appropriations bill in September.

Now you know me, I was highly critical of Acorn and all the crud they pulled on those undercover tapes. The organization DESERVES to have it's federal funding pulled, since they were caught on tape assisting people to defraud that government.

However... they may have a point.


A bill of attainder is "a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial." The Constitution of the United States forbids bills of attainder from being passed by the Congress (article 1, section 9) or state legislatures (section 10).

How this turns out depends entirely upon how the bill was written. If Congress specifically cited Acorn in the bill, then Acorn may well prevail at trial... though you can be sure it will go all the way to the Supreme Court. A victory is not out of the question, here.

I am a big proponent of the US Constitution, regardless of whether or not it works in my favor today. Today I want Acorn defunded... but not if Congress had to violate the Constitution in order to do it. The Constitution is supposed to be the rules which govern the actions of Congress, and they must abide by those rules even if we must force them to do so.

I am not a lawyer and I haven't read the bill in question, so I don't have an opinion as to whether it was actually a bill of attainder or not. But if it was, then Acorn should prevail in court... that's how the rule of law works.

Read the rest...

WH Mulls Spending TARP Money To Reduce Deficit

Something amazing has happened in the White House: they’ve discovered that they can rob Peter to pay Paul. In other words, they want to take money from the TARP program (money that was borrowed in the first place, so it’s deficit spending) and use it to reduce the deficit.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125799009185344567.html

The Obama administration, under pressure to show it is serious about tackling the budget deficit, is seizing on an unusual target to showcase fiscal responsibility: the $700 billion financial rescue.

The administration wants to keep some of the unspent funds available for emergencies, but is considering setting aside a chunk for debt reduction, according to people familiar with the matter. It is also expected to lower the projected long-term cost of the program -- the amount it expects to lose -- to as little as $200 billion from $341 billion estimated in August.

The idea is still a matter of debate within the administration and it is unclear how much impact it would have on the nation's mounting deficit levels. Still, the potential move illustrates how the Obama administration is trying to find any way it can to bring down the deficit, which is turning into a political as well as an economic liability.

So they borrow money to spend $700 billion in TARP funds, then decide to use some of that money to “pay down some debt.” Watch closely, ladies and gentlemen, if you want to see which shell the pea is under.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is pressing for substantial spending cuts to go with any tax increases to try to avoid the "tax and spend" label that has bedeviled Democrats, according to administration and congressional officials.

The administration is constrained in tackling the mounting deficit, since raising taxes or slashing spending could stunt economic growth. Administration officials say the Obama economic team is especially concerned that rapid deficit reduction could hurt the economy.

Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Obama, if you truly want to lower the deficit, I can help you. First, repeal the ineffective stimulus package. Then abandon plans to increase our national debt through Cap & Tax and your ObamaCare bills… simply withdraw the bills and abandon these expensive and risky plans. Why make the very problem you’re trying to solve WORSE by more deficit spending?

If you want to get out of a hole, the first step is to stop digging that hole deeper.

My suggestions won’t SOLVE the problem, but they will help.

Read the rest...

How Will Health Care Change If ObamaCare Passes?

PresBo promised “Change we can believe in” while he was running for office. Now that he’s pushing a hugely unpopular government takeover of our health care system, what is likely to change? David Gratzer of Forbes.com attempts to answer this question.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/health-care-reform-bill-opinions-contributors-david-gratzer.html

Here's what it will change. First, there will be an immediate surge in employment (in Washington). In the bill, the secretary of health can spend billions right away to staff the new public insurance, to fund the National Health Corps and to pay for new committees, agencies and studies--a list that's actually too long to fit onto a newspaper page.

Second, there will be an immediate shift in medical power. Federal agencies and legislators will have undisputed authority over health care decisions once made by doctors or state legislatures. A committee, for example, will decide which preventative care treatments must be covered in every insurance policy--an added cost for you, yes, and potentially without benefit. States and health innovators will likely defer new initiatives while they wait in limbo for Washington to resolve regulatory questions unanswered in the bill.

Finally, your premiums should rise. That's right--rise. Most Americans' first experiences of ObamaCare will be higher premiums, just as RomneyCare in Massachusetts led to higher costs. That's because new federal regulations will change how insurance is priced and sold.

Now this may just be me talking, but higher premiums, a larger government, and government-controlled healthcare isn’t change that I can believe in. I certainly can't believe in this garbage.

Can you?

Read the rest...

Even Supporters Don’t Believe Hype On ObamaCare

Supporting this round of “healthcare reform,” amounting to little more than a government assumption of central authority, is an ideological commitment. It has little to do with covering everybody, balancing the budget, creating jobs, or doing what is best for the country… it’s merely a push to remake the country in accordance with the belief that the government knows what is best for us.

Even many who think we SHOULD have a system of universal coverage aren’t kidding themselves about the other aspects of the bills currently being considered in Congress.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2009/11/some-vaguely-heretical-thoughts-on-health-care-reform.html#entry-more

So what does it all add up to? The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment to help provide health coverage for the vast majority of its citizens. I support this commitment, and I think the federal government’s spending priorities should be altered to make it happen. But let’s not pretend that it isn’t a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won’t.

Many Democratic insiders know all this, or most of it. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration before it (and many other Administrations before that) is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind. At some point in the future, the fiscal consequences of the reform will have to be dealt with in a more meaningful way, but by then the principle of (near) universal coverage will be well established. Even a twenty-first-century Ronald Reagan will have great difficult overturning it.

Keep in mind, this is being written by somebody who thinks the legislation should pass. So what does he have to say about the “budget saving” PresBo and company are telling us about?

Let’s remind ourselves of the basics. There are two big (and linked) problems with the current health-care system. It excludes 46.3 million Americans, according to the Census Bureau, and it is inordinately expensive. The proposed reform purports to tackle both of these problems; in fact, it only addresses the first one in any systematic manner. The future cost savings that the Administration and its congressional allies are promising to deliver are based on wishful thinking and sleight of hand. Over time, the reform, as proposed, would almost certainly add substantially to the budget deficit, thereby worsening the long-term fiscal crisis that the country faces. Financing this measure alone wouldn’t break the U.S. Treasury. Other elements of the fiscal picture, such as the looming increases in interest payments on the national debt and an explosive growth in Medicare spending as the baby boomers retire—are far larger. But the numbers involved in health-care reform are still significant—perhaps one per cent of annual G.D.P.

As for believing the administration’s blasé assurances that the fiscal impact will be positive, the author just doesn’t trust the numbers.

According to the C.B.O., in summary, many more people will, with government assistance, buy private insurance coverage (some twenty-one million) and many others (about fifteen million) will become newly eligible for Medicaid, which is wholly financed by the taxpayer. Surely, this will cost considerable sums of money and add to the deficit. Or will it? The Democrat-controlled C.B.O. says that the Pelosi plan will actually reduce the deficit by a hundred and four billion dollars between 2010 and 2019, thereby satisfying President Obama’s claim that the reform will be deficit neutral. Furthermore, the C.B.O. suggests that the legislation’s impact on the deficit will continue to be negative in the following decade, from 2019 to 2029. I wish I could believe these figures, but I don’t.

Two large items underpin the Administration’s math: five hundred and seventy-two billion dollars of tax increases over ten years, and roughly the same amount of cost savings on Medicare and other existing government health programs. Most of the revenue increase would come from levying a 5.4 per cent surcharge on Americans individuals who earn more than five hundred thousand dollars a year and joint filers that earn more than a million dollars. I am a big supporter of progressive taxation, but at some point it becomes politically unsustainable. If health-care reform goes through, and the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011, top earners will face a marginal tax rate of forty-five per cent at the federal level. Add in state and local taxes, plus Social Security and Medicare payments, and wealthy people in New York, say, would be facing tax rates of about sixty per cent. As sure as night follows day, this would generate more tax evasion and a political backlash. Without a doubt, the next Republican-controlled Congress would reverse the changes.

I would like to repeat, the above statements are from a SUPPORTER of ObamaCare who thinks the bill should pass. Of course, he also makes the case that it’s okay for PresBo and Congress to lie to us about it…

That takes me back to where I began. Both in terms of the political calculus of the Democratic Party, and in terms of making the United States a more equitable society, expanding health-care coverage now and worrying later about its long-term consequences is an eminently defensible strategy. Putting on my amateur historian’s cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted. But as an economics reporter and commentator, I feel obliged to put on my green eyeshade and count the dollars.

Fiscally speaking, this plan is a disaster and will cause us fiscal problems for decades to come… if not forever. This may be why supporters like to dwell on our “responsibility” and their assertion that health care is a “right” to which all are entitled… because when they try to defend this fiscally disastrous policy they have to lie to make things sound better than they are.

Read the rest...

Unemployment Figures Half The Story

The labor department announced an October unemployment figure of 10.2%. However, I would like to point out AGAIN that THAT number doesn't tell the whole story. When the labor department reports the unemployment figures, that is the number of people who filed unemployment claims in that month. The Labor department also keeps track of those who are seeking full-time employment but can only find part-time jobs. That's called the U-6, and it stands at 17.5% for October.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/doctor_note_required_to_read_this_xUd1QgPrRNwN7MXlX9BkKP

I've already explained many times that an alternative measure of unemployment, called U-6 by the Labor Department, has been running much higher than the jobless rate you see in the headlines -- the one that spiked to 10.2 percent last month.

U-6 was 17.5 percent in October, a big jump from 17 percent in September and a major leap from the 10.6 percent in September 2008.

The U-6 calculation represents those who are unemployed plus people who want full-time jobs but can only find part-time work.

As for those who used to be on unemployment but whose benefits have lapsed and STILL can't find a job, including them could propel the figure as high as 22%.

My friend John Williams of Shadow Government Stats thinks the true unemployment rate would be 22.1 percent if everyone -- all discouraged former workers, encouraged, involuntary part-timers and the like -- were included.

And amazingly enough, the labor department admits that they estimated some numbers and may have been overly optimistic in the estimations.

The government's household survey (the one from which the unemployment rate of 10.2 percent comes) showed a "decline in employment" of 589,000 in October, which followed a 785,000 employment drop in September.

That number also includes people who say they retired and others who were fortunate enough to have died during the past month and no longer require a job.

More numbers: Last Friday's 190,000 loss of jobs (from the survey of companies) would have been worse if 86,000 imaginary jobs weren't included to the tally.

The government thinks those 86,000 jobs are coming from newly formed small businesses that it can't survey, but last month the Labor Department admitted that this might be overly optimistic.

In other words, as bad as the government's figures were for October, the truth is bleaker still. Kind of puts PresBo's "We Saved Jobs!" claims into perspective, doesn't it?

Read the rest...