Massive Debt Increases Coming

The White House projects that our national debt will increase by approximately $4 TRILLION dollars by 2014.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/borrowing.pdf

And this means that our national debt is spiraling out of control... and eventually the bill will come due.
http://www.thetradingreport.com/2009/12/30/coming-soon-the-bill-for-the-massive-u-s-debt/

Americans could be in for a rude awakening in coming months when they discover the true scope of the massive national debt racked up by the U.S. government.

In fact, the $1.6 trillion deficit expected for 2010, which is above 10% of gross domestic product (GDP), is only the beginning.

Since the current economic crisis began in late 2007, the U.S. Federal Reserve has tripled the size of its balance sheet, creating enormous amounts of new money by lending to hundreds of ailing banks and buying up more than $1 trillion of questionable asset-backed securities.

But that’s only a small part of the story. Since the beginning of the crisis, the Fed has lent, spent, or guaranteed $11.6 trillion, including underwriting the entire system of mortgage finance in the United States, a system that currently shows a nearly $1 trillion loss.

And none of these figures include any of U.S. President Barack Obama’s stimulus packages, which means the actual deficit next year might grow to $2 trillion – around 15% of GDP.

The ramifications of this debt, which is bound to grow larger, will have a profound effect on investors – not the least of which is the imminent decline of the dollar.

PresBo and his liberal co-conspirators in Congress are borrowing this nation into bankruptcy at an unprecedented speed, and it MUST be stopped. We simply cannot afford this kind of fiscal insanity, no matter which party is behind it.

Read the rest...

Can Repubs Get 41 In Senate?

I'm not asking this question about the 2010 fall elections, but rather about the January 19 special election in Massachusetts to fill Kennedy's seat. Does Republican candidate Scott Brown stand a chance to beat Democrat Martha Coakley?

The short answer is that it is possible, but not likely. If the RNC spends money on the GOTV effort it will probably help, but how much is (as always) unclear.

First, Massachusetts is a state from which few Republicans are elected to Congress. Those who do win election, however, seem to win in special elections... such as the one in January. So this point is a wash.


Second, Coakley is a well-known politician with name recognition, while Brown is essentially unknown to the majority of the electorate. Name recognition matters a lot, and Coakley has the advantage there.

Third, the makeup of the electorate itself favors the Democrat, though independents do make up almost a plurality of voters. The latest figures we have shows that the Massachusetts electorate was 43% Democratic, 17% Republican and 40% Independent during the 2008 Presidential election. The GOP would need a massive surge of independents in order to win the seat... more than what was seen in recent special elections in New Jersey and Virginia where two-thirds of independents voted for the GOP candidate. If that takes place here, the numbers show the election could play out with a 56% - 44% victory for the Democrat. Close, but no cigar. But that brings up point number four...

Fourth, turnout may well favor the GOP in this special election. Brown is running an aggressive campaign while Coakley is not. For Democrats, this is just another special election, but for Republicans this is the magic 41st vote in the Senate... expect higher turnout for Republicans and Republican-leaning independents than for Democrats. And in a low-turnout special election, such as this one is expected to be, the 2008 demographics may be completely irrelevant here.

What the GOP must do to win that election is to funnel money into GOTV efforts... calls and postcards reminding people to vote. Transportation for those who have trouble making the trip. Make sure those who NEED absentee ballots GET them. Some TV commercials to increase Brown's profile wouldn't be a bad idea, but since the idea is to mobilize motivated supporters, such ads aren't strictly necessary. Turnout, however, IS. If the GOP can motivate people to vote on the January 19, then they have a chance to capture that seat. Otherwise, odds are good that Coakley takes it.

Which brings me back to my initial point: a GOP victory in Massachusetts is NOT out of the question, but it is a long-shot. Democrats have all the advantages going into the election, and it'll take a lot of money and last-minute work to pull this one out.

Read the rest...

Danish Paper: Obama Greater Than Christ

And the deification of Obama continues. This time "Denmark's largetst newspaper" has said that Obama is greater than Christ.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=120459

"Obama is, of course, greater than Jesus – if we have to play that absurd Christmas game."

The editorial noted that "the idea was naturally that the comparison between Jesus and Obama" would be made. "If such a comparison were to be made, it would, of course, inevitably be to Obama's advantage."

The editorial, written on the occasion of a legislative vote in favor of Obama's plan for a health care takeover by the government, cited "the right of every American not to be financially shipwrecked when their health fails" as well as the "biggest ever financial support package in America's history, a major disarmament agreement and the quickest-ever re-establishment of American reputation."

"On the other hand, we have Jesus' miracles that everyone still remembers, but which only benefitted a few. At the same time, we have the wonderful parables about his life and deeds that we know from the New Testament, but which have been interpreted so differently over the past 2000 years that it is impossible to give an unequivocal result of his work," the newspaper said.

When, WHEN will people realize that he's a POLITICIAN and not a savior? And though he's a gifted politician, he doesn't have a lot of savvy about how to govern (NOT rule) a country.


Read the rest...

Tea Party Rally on January 19th

Just letting you all know that a "Welcome Back Rally" will be held on January 19 in Montgomery, in front of the State House. The purpose of this rally is to support three legislative goals for the upcoming session:

State Sovereignty Resolution
This is a resolution that would declare Alabama's sovereignty under the 10th amendment. It's just a resolution that would be sent to Congress and the President, but it's a very good symbolic statement to make. I wrote one earlier this year that was introduced into the House, though it died in committee.

Health Care Freedom Act
This is a Constitutional Amendment that would protect our rights to manage our own health care. It would ban forced compliance with government healthcare plans AND would prohibit fines for the refusal to purchase health care. Among other things. I wrote my own version of this, but two different versions have been pre-filed for the upcoming session.

Firearms/Ammunition Act
This bill would exempt from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within the borders of Alabama.

This rally will be held on January 19 in front of the Alabama State House from Noon until 1:00 PM.

If you agree with any of these three priorities, rally with the rest of us on the 19th. The Legislature convenes on the January 12, so they'll be there on the day of the rally. It is important to show them that these measures have support.

Join us for the "Welcome Back Rally" on January 19, and let's see if we can get these bills MOVING!

UPDATE: I neglected to post the website for the rally. Allow me to correct that oversight now.
http://welcomebackrally.ning.com/

Read the rest...

Ex-Gitmo Prisoners Behind Failed Bombing Attempt

As surprising as it may sound, some of the terrorists released from Gitmo have actually gone back to their terrorist ways. In this case, the Christmas Day bombing attempt that failed only because the bomb fizzled was masterminded by two individuals who were released from Gitmo in 2007.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/men-believed-northwest-airlines-plot-set-free/story?id=9434065

Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the Northwest bombing in a Monday statement that vowed more attacks on Americans.

American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia where they entered into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials.

It's hard to understand, I know, that "art therapy rehabilitation" would be ineffective on Islamic terrorists, but apparently it is.


What the HECK is that about? Why would anybody in this entire world think that "art therapy rehabilitation" would reform terrorists who kill people because they believe their religion tells them to do so? When dealing with people like that, finger-painting just ain't gonna do it, you know?

It has been my position since day one that individuals incarcerated in Gitmo needed to be tried in a timely fashion... not rushed through with undue haste or held for years without charges being brought, but tried in a reasonable time frame. And if found guilty, then PUNISHED! We had these two men and released them. They're not "rehabilitated" because they learned how to draw or paint, they're out there planning how to kill more Americans!

And PresBo says he wants to close Gitmo and try or release all prisoners? Give them a trial, yes, but don't release any more unless we're sure they are innocent! Innocent, as in they didn't try to kill Americans in the first place.

Kind of shows you how stupid it is to just willy-nilly close Gitmo and trust that the newly released terrorists won't kill the rest of us. Come on, guys, some common-sense, please?

Read the rest...

We The People

One of my favorite songs by Ray Stevens has always been "If 10% is good enough for Jesus, it oughta be enough for Uncle Sam"... what a good, musical message.

Well, Ray has come out with a new song now, called "We The People", and I think it's worth a listen. So, here ya go.



If the player above won't work, here's a link to the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc_-L4fyLUo

I hope you ejnoy the song.


Read the rest...

Economics 101: Hidden Costs

What with our current government's proclivity to take our hard-earned money, spend it on one politically-motivated project or another, and claim they "stimulated" the economy, I think it is time for a fundamental lesson in economics. This one comes from Frederic Bastiat WAY back in 1850, and is called the "Broken Window Fallacy."

It goes something like this. (All currency amounts in the example have been changed to dollars, though Bastiat, being French, originally used francs.)

A shopkeeper is upset when some nameless youth pitches a rock through his window, shattering the glass and forcing him to pay for it's replacement. So the glass maker comes and replaces the pane of glass, for which he is paid the sum of $200. The glass maker is happy with the situation, and intends to spend the money on food and shoes, thus enriching the baker and the cobbler... who of course will spend the newly earned money elsewhere.

Obviously this incident has benefited the economic well-being of the town, right?


The problem with this conclusion is that it ignores the hidden cost here. Yes, the glass maker earned an additional $200, but that doesn't make the broken pane of glass a good thing. For one thing, the shopkeeper is out the money... instead of having a window and $200, he now has only the window. And he may have been intending to purchase something with that money, such as a new suit. But because he had to pay to replace the glass, now he hasn't the money for the new suit.

I hope you see the point being made, here. Looking only at what is visible, the situation looks to have created economic growth... a growth of $200 PLUS all subsequent expenditures by the glass maker, the baker, the cobbler, and whoever else was ultimately involved. But the new $200 suit is left out of the equation for the simple reason that it never had the chance to be made. To understand economics you must not only look at the visible, but also at the hidden.

To personalize it, I have only the money I earn upon which to live... once that is gone, I'm broke. So if the county increases property taxes that cost me $500 per year, that means that I will spend $500 less in the local economy. The pizza place will deliver fewer pizzas, the movie theaters will sell fewer tickets, the local restaurants will see a small reduction in their sales, and so forth. No matter WHAT government does with the money, what is important is what we DON'T SEE... and that's what would have been done with the money in the first place.

The stimulus bill removed $787 billion from the economy and then "re-inserted" it to fund their "shovel ready" projects: road pavings, scientific studies, even the purchase of boots for workers in one memorable example. PresBo and the Democrats loudly proclaim success, but in doing so they fall victim to the "window fallacy" by ignoring the hidden.

What would that money have been spent on, had government not taken it for their own use?

Keynesian economists claim that $1 in government spending increases GDP by MORE THAN $1. They accomplish this by applying what is called a "Keynesian multiplier" to that original dollar... an often arbitrary number that is used to determine the "real" economic impact of that spending. And even with that multiplier in place, numerous studies have proven that government spending grows GDP at a much slower rate than private-sector expenditures.

If you would like to read this in Bastiat's own words, you may find them here:
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

But remember when PresBo takes our money from us and announces that X number of jobs were "created or saved"... how would that money have been otherwise spent? It is an important consideration, and one which the politicians in DC are completely ignoring.

Read the rest...

Health Care Not A Right

If you'll recall, I wrote a piece the other day arguing that ObamaCare is immoral because it tried to re-invent health care as a "right" that each of us have.
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2009/12/immorality-of-obamacare.html

I do not have a monopoly on good sense, so I thought I'd share with you similar arguments made by Jacob Sullum.
http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/23/there-aint-no-such-thing-as-a

The Framers believed the Constitution recognized pre-existing rights, protecting them from violation by the government. The common law likewise developed as a way of protecting people from wrongful interference by their neighbors. If people have rights simply by virtue of being human, those rights can be violated (by theft or murder, for example) even in the absence of government.

By contrast, notwithstanding Reid’s claim that government-subsidized health care is a fundamental human right, it does not make much sense to say that it exists in a country too poor to afford such subsidies or at a time before modern medicine, let alone in the state of nature. Did Paleolithic hunter-gatherers have a right to the “affordable, comprehensive and high-quality medical care” that the Congressional Progressive Caucus says is a right of “every person”? If so, who was violating that right?

During his second presidential debate with Republican nominee John McCain, Obama said health care “should be a right for every American.” Why? “There's something fundamentally wrong,” he said, “in a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills.”

According to the president, people have a right to health care because it is wrong to charge them for medical services they can’t afford. Which is another way of saying they have a right to health care.

I couldn't agree more. And what happens when we extend this argument out to it's ridiculous extreme? For the answer to that, we have to look no further than modern-day England.

If health care is a fundamental right, equality under the law would seem to require that everyone have the same level of care, regardless of their resources. That principle was illustrated by the case of Debbie Hirst, a British woman with metastasized breast cancer who in 2007 was denied access to a commonly used drug on the grounds that it was too expensive.

When Hirst decided to raise money to pay for the drug on her own, she was told that doing so would make her ineligible for further treatment by the National Health Service. According to The New York Times, “Officials said that allowing Mrs. Hirst and others like her to pay for extra drugs to supplement government care would violate the philosophy of the health service by giving richer patients an unfair advantage over poorer ones.” The right to health care is so important, it seems, that it can nullify itself.

This kind of claim isn't even logical, not by a long stretch. Too bad that so many people are entranced by the concept of getting something (health care) for nothing. TANSTAAFL, people, is real.

Read the rest...

Poll: Long & Confusing Bills Are Intentional

A new poll from Zogby found that 84% of respondents believe that Congress writes long and confusing bills so that it is easier to hide funding for special interests. In a related question, 63% believe they do it so the American public hasn't the time to read the bill, understand it, and let anybody know before a vote is taken.

You can read the details of the responses to both questions here:
http://www.zogby.com/news/X-LFR.pdf

I happen to agree with the findings, too. Especially in this ObamaCare debate, long and confusing bills were introduced and voted on within hours or days... clearly they didn't want us to know what was in the bill prior to their voting.


Read the rest...

This Decade Big Zero… Next Not So Hot, Either

With the new year looming, many people are offering looks back to the previous year and/or decade, as well as ahead to what we can expect in the future. I’ve located a few you should be aware of.

From an economic standpoint, the decade which began in 2001 was a wash… we experienced almost no economic growth at all. In many ways, we’re back to where we were 10 years ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

It was a decade with basically zero job creation. O.K., the headline employment number for December 2009 will be slightly higher than that for December 1999, but only slightly. And private-sector employment has actually declined — the first decade on record in which that happened.

It was a decade with zero economic gains for the typical family. Actually, even at the height of the alleged “Bush boom,” in 2007, median household income adjusted for inflation was lower than it had been in 1999. And you know what happened next.

It was a decade of zero gains for homeowners, even if they bought early: right now housing prices, adjusted for inflation, are roughly back to where they were at the beginning of the decade. And for those who bought in the decade’s middle years — when all the serious people ridiculed warnings that housing prices made no sense, that we were in the middle of a gigantic bubble — well, I feel your pain. Almost a quarter of all mortgages in America, and 45 percent of mortgages in Florida, are underwater, with owners owing more than their houses are worth.

Last and least for most Americans — but a big deal for retirement accounts, not to mention the talking heads on financial TV — it was a decade of zero gains for stocks, even without taking inflation into account. Remember the excitement when the Dow first topped 10,000, and best-selling books like “Dow 36,000” predicted that the good times would just keep rolling? Well, that was back in 1999. Last week the market closed at 10,520.

And forecasts for the coming year don’t look so great, either. We’re looking at possibly a decade of high unemployment.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34601256/ns/business-us_business

At best, it could take until the middle of the decade for the nation to generate enough jobs to drive down the unemployment rate to a normal 5 or 6 percent and keep it there. At worst, that won't happen until much later — perhaps not until the next decade.

In the near future, there is a decent chance that we’ll see more economic troubles in the latter half of next year.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/12/krugman-reasonably-high-chance-the-economy-will-contract.html

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman said he thinks there’s a “reasonably high chance” the economy will contract in the second half of next year.

On the "This Week" Roundtable, Krugman said he agreed with the assessment of fellow Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz that there is a significant chance the economy will shrink in 2010.

In terms of the economy and unemployment, we’ve been weathering a storm that is not yet over, and whose effects we will be feeling for quite some time to come.


Read the rest...

Dems Rebelling Against Cap & Trade

I suppose this was predictable... moderate Democrats are begging the White House and Democrat leaders to abandon Cap & Trade legislation. Why? Mainly because they know passing it will kill their chances of re-election in 2010.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30984.html

Bruised by the health care debate and worried about what 2010 will bring, moderate Senate Democrats are urging the White House to give up now on any effort to pass a cap-and-trade bill next year.

“I am communicating that in every way I know how,” says Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of at least half a dozen Democrats who've told the White House or their own leaders that it's time to jettison the centerpiece of their party's plan to curb global warming.

The creation of an economy-wide market for greenhouse gas emissions is as the heart of the climate bill that cleared the House earlier this year. But with the health care fight still raging and the economy still hurting, moderate Democrats have little appetite for another sweeping initiative — especially another one likely to pass with little or no Republican support.

They know they're in trouble and are looking for damage control. They know that America doesn't WANT the ObamaCare bill they're in the process of passing, and they know any further major initiatives will make things worse.

We'll see what happens...


Read the rest...

Attempted Terrorist Attack Fails

A Nigerian man named Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, who claims to be an Al Qaida operative, attempted to set off an explosive device on a Northwest Airlines plane on Christmas Day as it was landing in Detroit. Apparently the bomb fizzled and passengers subdued the would-be bomber.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34592031/ns/us_news-security

Flight 253 with 278 passengers and 11 crew members aboard was about 20 minutes from the airport when passengers heard popping noises, witnesses said. At least one person climbed over others and jumped on the man. Shortly afterward, the suspect was taken to the front of the plane with his pants cut off and his legs burned, a passenger said. Law enforcement officials said the burns indicated the explosive was strapped to his legs.

I want to focus on the security aspects of this.

The White House said it believed it was an attempted act of terrorism and stricter security measures were quickly imposed on airline travel. It did not specify what those were.

Federal officials said there would be heightened security for both domestic and international flights at airports across the country, but the intensified levels would likely be "layered," differing from location to location depending on alerts, security concerns and other factors.

Passengers can expect to see heightened screening, more bomb-sniffing dog and officer units and behavioral-detection specialists at some airports, but there will also be unspecified less visible precautions as well, officials said.

My major problem with airport security screening measures is that they focus on objects... often to the point of idiocy. Do they honestly believe that somebody can take over an airplane using toenail clippers? As to the banning of shaving cream... enough said.

Faced with yet another person who had shown up as a "person of interest" in ongoing anti-terrorism operations, how does TSA react? By tightening up their search for objects.

This county has become FAR too politically correct, to the point where it has long affected our national security. Airport screeners are actually FORBIDDEN to "profile" those targeted for heightened scrutiny... at times taking closer looks at aging grandmothers from Omaha while letting better suspects pass through.

When is the last time that old women from the Midwestern US were involved in an al Qaida terrorist incident? That's what I thought.

This isn't politically correct, but it might just work. Hey, since the terrorists seem to be MUSLIMS, why not focus our heightened scrutiny on those who fit the dang profile? The whole concept that security measures can be blind to obvious patterns is ridiculous. It's like forcing the police to include all ethnic groups in a lineup when witnesses clearly saw a tall Latino commit the crime! STUPID!

I'm not saying that those who don't fit the obvious profile should be ignored... rather, I'm saying that heightened searches should be aimed primarily at those most likely to be terrorists. All Muslims are not terrorists, but it seems that recently all terrorists have, in fact, been Muslim.

In this case, Mutallab was designated "a person of interest" as a potential terrorist, but he was still permitted to board the airplane without, apparently, facing heightened scrutiny. How inept are we getting, when even those we SUSPECT of being terrorists benefit from either our politically correct handicaps or our ineptitude?

Thankfully, nobody was hurt in this incident except the would-be bomber, but that was due, at least partly, to the bomb fizzling. Things could have been a lot worse.

Going after objects doesn't work, guys... why not target the terrorists?

Read the rest...

Merry Christmas

Today is not a time for politics, nor is it a time for trite images and platitudes of snowmen and Santa Claus. Today is the day that we celebrate the birth of our savior Jesus Christ, the son of God.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." - John 3:16

Rejoice in God's love on this day of all days; rejoice in the blessings and love of friends and family.

Merry Christmas, my friends.



To view video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn10FF-FQfs


Read the rest...

The Immorality of ObamaCare

Many people have argued against ObamaCare on several grounds. Some claim it isn’t necessary, others claim that government-run health care will be worse than what we have today, and still others say that the new government program is too expensive. Today I’m going to make an argument from a different perspective.

The ObamaCare proposals in Congress are immoral for three major reasons

The primary argument I will make is against the fundamental assumption that health care is a “right” to which all men are entitled. It is not, and it cannot be. Look at the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence… Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. All of these things belong to individuals only. Health care is strikingly different, because health care is a service provided by others. To say that we have a “right” to health care is to say that doctors MUST treat us whether we can pay or not. Does anybody honestly believe that we have a RIGHT to a portion of a doctor’s life and labor? We do not. Nobody has a “right” to the products and/or services of another human being… otherwise the concept of theft has no meaning.

It is immoral to demand that another person MUST give you what you want… when mandated by law, it becomes the immorality of force. Is it moral to use force, even the force of government, to obtain something you want that belongs to another? No.

This is the central point that must be understood… stealing a portion of another’s life is morally wrong, regardless of need or motivation.


I understand that the ObamaCare bills require us to purchase insurance rather than making it free, but numerous “subsidies” will be given to those who cannot afford the premiums. This goes back to the central point outlined above… stealing from another for your own benefit is morally wrong, even if that theft is accomplished by government. In this case, money will be taken from taxpayers to pay for the insurance premiums of others. Regardless of HOW the money is taken or the purpose for which it is used, that theft remains immoral and wrong.

Finally, the bill penalizes insurance companies and reduces their ability to earn a profit. How? By removing their ability to manage the risks they take when issuing a policy. Remember that insurance is a numbers game… the company is taking a risk that eventually they’ll have to pay out more to you than you paid in premiums. Under ObamaCare, insurance companies could not refuse a policy to somebody with a pre-existing condition... such as the cancer the doctor just diagnosed her with. Without the ability to NOT sell insurance to a bad risk, they lose the ability to manage their own profitability, and ultimately the ability to survive in a turbulent market.

The assumption that health care is a right lies at the heart of what is wrong and immoral about ObamaCare. Nobody can claim a right to the property or services of another person… period. The United States Congress is in the process of legalizing theft and indentured servitude in the United States… as long as the victim is a doctor, nurse, hospital, or health insurance company.

Read the rest...

Rep Griffith Loses Committee Assignments

That didn't take long. Immediately after Griffith switched parties, political revenge was exacted by Nancy Pelosi... Griffith was removed from all the committees he had formerly been a part of.



(Watch video here.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEpuCQuMbzU&feature=player_embedded

That's the immediate consequences of thumbing your nose at the Democrats... though I think Griffith is counting on the 2010 voter revolt to bring his NEW party back into power.


Read the rest...

Where Is Santa Claus?

Well, it's Christmas Eve day, and I got to wondering where Santa Claus was. I went out to the official NORAD Santa Tracker and found that, as I write this, Santa is delivering presents in Brisbane, Australia, and is heading for Sydney.
http://www.noradsanta.org/en/index.html

Keep an eye out so we'll know when he's delivering in Alabama!


Read the rest...

Third Quarter Recovery Weaker Than Estimated

Remember when the government was incredibly happy to announce that our economy grew by 2.8% during the third quarter of 2009? They have since corrected that number downwards to 2.2%. Why? Primarily because consumer spending wasn't as high as previously estimated.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091222/D9COD2OG0.html

The Commerce Department's new reading on gross domestic product for the July-to-September quarter was slower than the 2.8 percent growth rate estimated just a month ago. Economists were predicting that figure wouldn't be revised in the government's final estimate on third-quarter GDP.

The main factors behind the downgrade: consumers didn't spend as much, commercial construction was weaker, business investment in equipment and software was a bit softer and companies cut back more on inventories, according to Tuesday's report.

For those hoping that Christmas spending will result in a big economic boost, this is unlikely to happen.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9COHGNG0&show_article=1

Sales this time of year are vital to retailers, of course. But they're not nearly enough to drive the economy. Even if holiday sales exceed expectations, the broader recovery is expected to remain weak—for the rest of the year and beyond.

While holiday sales aren't vital to economic growth, consumer spending as a whole is: It accounts for about 70 percent of it.

And usually as recoveries begin, the economy roars to life as pent-up spending is lavished on cars, clothes, homes and appliances. Consumers become an engine of economic strength.

Not likely this time.

With credit tight and joblessness high, no one expects shoppers to provide enough punch to power the recovery. The government's surprisingly strong retail sales report for November—and a decent holiday shopping season—could turn out to be a last hurrah.

"Despite the glimmer of optimism on the surface ... the economic fundamentals are weak," said Sung Won Sohn, economist at California State University's Smith School of Business.

Many economists do think the economy is growing faster now than it did last quarter. JPMorgan Chase Bank, for instance, has bumped up its forecast for growth this quarter from 3.5 percent to 4.5 percent. But that's no thanks to consumer spending, which is forecast to slow compared with last quarter. Growth is instead being driven by companies restocking shrunken stockpiles of goods.

Yet that benefit could be fleeting. With consumer spending subdued, companies won't have to keep boosting their inventories.

And despite last month's dip in the unemployment rate, most experts don't think the unemployment rate has peaked yet.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/dec/20/us-unemployment-rate-rise-continues

A seemingly unstoppable epidemic of joblessness has swept across America over the past 24 months. The US unemployment rate, which began 2008 at 4.9%, has risen to 10% and despite a slight drop of 0.2 percentage points last month, many economists believe it is yet to peak. More than seven million jobs have evaporated since the recession began and President Barack Obama's newly minted administration is facing increasingly vocal criticism for underestimating the problem.

A $787bn economic stimulus package intended to kick-start job creation has had only limited impact. The White House, which predicted unemployment would top out at 8%, is under pressure – a recent Gallup poll for USA Today found 55% of Americans disapprove of Obama's handling of the jobs crisis, putting employment equal with Afghanistan as the president's worst policy area.

"The media talks about the stockmarket recovering kind of as if it's a baseball team scoring – but it doesn't really make much difference to peoples' lives," says Dean Baker, co-director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, who warns that Democrats will get stung in November's mid-term Congressional elections unless employment improves. "What's really going to matter when people go to vote in November is whether they're working, whether they're getting a decent wage."

Regardless of what you hear from politicians, we haven't seen the end of our troubles yet.

Read the rest...

Despite Likely Passage, Public Opposes ObamaCare

According to the most recent Rasmussen polling data, the majority of Americans are opposed to the ObamaCare bills in Congress and think they will harm the country.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Among the results found:

Overall, Americans oppose ObamaCare 55% to 41%.

68% of Democrats support ObamaCare, but only 20% of Republicans and 36% of independents support it.

33% of senior citizens support it, with 60% opposed.

Though 19% of respondents STRONGLY support ObamaCare, 45% are strongly opposed.

57% of respondents think passing nothing would be better than passing the current legislation.

53% of voters believe that passage of the legislation will lead to a lower quality of care.

58% of voters believe that passage of the legislation will drive the cost of care up.

66% say an increase in free market competition will do more than government regulation to reduce health care costs.

Americans DO NOT WANT ObamaCare, as numerous polls have clearly shown. If, as Democrats believe, the majority should rule, then abandon ObamaCare now because the majority doesn't want it!


Read the rest...

Griffith Blames Pelosi, Dems Worried

Alabama Representative Parker Griffith announced yesterday that he was switching parties to become a Republican. In making this announcement, he laid the blame on Pelosi and her legislative agenda.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30896.html

Democratic Rep. Parker Griffith announced Tuesday that he's switching parties – saying he can no longer align himself “with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy and drives us further and further into debt.”

“Unfortunately there are those in the Democratic Leadership that continue to push an agenda focused on massive new spending, tax increases, bailouts and a health care bill that is bad for our healthcare system,” Griffith said in a statement. “I have always considered myself to be an independent voice and I have tried to be that voice in Congress – but after watching this agenda firsthand I now believe that the differences in the two parties could not be more clear and that for me to be true to my core beliefs and values I must align myself with the Republican party and speak out clearly on these issues.

And though the Democrats OFFICIALLY are saying that this is an isolated incident and doesn't matter, privately they're getting concerned.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30914.html

Still, privately Democrats acknowledged the announcement came as a serious blow to a party that, over the last several election cycles, had made significant inroads in conservative southern districts like Griffith’s, which delivered 61 percent of the vote to John McCain in 2008 but nevertheless managed to elect a Democrat to an open House seat.

The situation is compounded by the worrisome recent uptick in retirements in politically competitive districts—among them veteran Southern Democrats like Tennessee Reps. John Tanner and Bart Gordon—and comes amidst troubling polling data for various Democratic incumbents.

“There’s a real backlash in the conservative districts against Washington and the president,” said one senior Democratic operative. “In any right-leaning district…you’re going to see the incumbent looking at numbers they’ve never seen before.”

“I just think it really shows the moderates feel they don’t have a voice in the party, they don’t like where we are going as a party, and that should be troubling for Democrats,” said another senior Democratic strategist. “Less than a year into a Washington that is controlled by Democrats, they’ve lost hope, they feel disillusioned, and they don’t think there’s anything to stick around for.”

I don't think Griffith's switch alone will hurt the Democrats, but they may face one or two problems stemming from it. First, others may follow suit, creating an immediate shift in momentum from one party to the other. Second, the defection may be the outward expression of turmoil inside the party, and therefore fragment their ability to get things done.

And I want to repeat my distaste for growing a political party by accepting defectors from other parties. It's just not the best way to create a fiscally conservative party.

Read the rest...

Only Democrats Deserve Stimulus Spending

Apparently, the Congressional leadership and our current President believe that Democrats deserve more stimulus spending than do Republicans. Why do I say this? Because the highly-touted "stimulus package" routed FAR more funds to districts with Democrats for Congressmen than to those with Republicans in office.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/21/study-shows-partisan-influence-on-stimulus-spending/

Democrats are feeling stimulated these days. In a recent study, Jerry Brito and Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center tracked stimulus spending in all 435 congressional districts plus the District of Columbia. They found that the amount of stimulus money received by a district was influenced by its partisan representation, rather than economic need. Districts with a Democratic congressman received almost twice as many dollars as those with Republican representation, whereas there was no relationship between a district’s unemployment level and the amount of stimulus money it received.

That's what the whole thing was about, anyway... spend money to benefit Democrats in office. They didn't really care about where aid was supposedly "needed"... as the study showed.


So after one year in charge, let's look at how Democrats rule (they don't "govern," they rule... like royalty).

They will bribe Senators to get their vote, punish those who don't vote their way, ignore the clearly expressed will of the people to do what they want, seize ownership of private companies, raise taxes, increase spending, and blame anybody but themselves for the consequences of their own actions.

Gee... is that change that YOU can believe in?

Yes, I do BELIEVE that now is the time to HOPE for some real CHANGE. Another year or two of the status quo and this nation will be bankrupt. Can we vote the looters out and hopefully restore some fiscal sanity?

YES WE CAN!!!!!!!

Read the rest...

Poll: 58% Say Obama Bad For America

According to a poll recently released by Survey USA, 58% of respondents believe that Obama's decisions have been bad for America. I found the following interesting:

49% think that information on global warming was mostly falsified.

62% think that ObamaCare would result in "more corruption" in government.

64% think that government is too big.

72% think political corruption played a “major role” in the financial crisis last year.

56% think the federal government is operating “out of line” with the U.S. Constitution

For details, view the results here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58787

PresBo and Congressional liberals don't care. With any luck at all, this blatant disregard for the American people will hurt them badly during the 2010 elections.


Read the rest...

Alabama To Sue: ObamaCare Unconstitutional

I don't know if you've heard of the "Nebraska Compromise" that helped secure the vote of Senator Ben Nelson. Basically, that deal exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that all other states must pay. Officials for seven states (South Carolina, Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington) have announced that they are actively considering suing over the provision.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34551523/ns/politics-health_care_reform

The top prosecutors in seven states are probing the constitutionality of a political deal that cut a funding break for Nebraska in order to pass a federal health care reform bill, South Carolina's attorney general said Tuesday.

Attorney General Henry McMaster said he and his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington state — all Republicans — are jointly taking a look at the deal they've dubbed the "Nebraska compromise."

"The Nebraska compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution — as well as other provisions of federal law," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said.

They haven't released their legal theory, but from what I can see it is probably based upon the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

In a letter to McMaster, [US Senator Lindsey] Graham singled out the deal to win Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson's vote on the massive health care bill the Senate is expected to adopt Thursday. Nelson held out as fellow Democrats worked to get 60 votes to foreclose a GOP filibuster and the bill was amended to shield Nebraska from the expected $45 million annual cost tied to expanding Medicaid programs.

"We have serious concerns about the constitutionality of this Nebraska compromise as it results in special treatment for only one state in the nation at the expense of the other 49," Graham and DeMint wrote.

Now for the $64,000 question... does the legal challenge have a chance? Personally, I think that there will be numerous challenges on various grounds (the Nebraska Compromise, individual mandate, etc), and it is my HOPE that one or more of those challenges bears fruit. I firmly believe this law will be bad for the nation, and I also firmly believe that it is in direct conflict with the Constitutional principles that have made this country great.

With any luck, one or more of these challenges will have legs... but we'll have to wait and see. I'm not sure ANYBODY can challenge a bill in court before it becomes a law!

And my congratulations go out to Attorney General Troy King, who apparently has decided to help challenge this law. GOOD decision.

Read the rest...

Global Warmers Changed History To Support Theory

Here's one aspect of ClimateGate that you probably hadn't considered: Wikipedia. Don't worry, global warming activists did NOT forget about it.

APPARENTLY, there was one person dedicated to removing from Wikipedia anything that contradicted their pet theory... and he was a busy little man, blocking or removing thousands of such entries.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119745

Beginning in February 2003, [William] Connolley rewrote Wikipedia entries on global warming, the greenhouse effect, the instrumental temperature record, the urban heat island, on climate models and on global cooling, according to the report. In February, he began editing the Little Ice Age. By August, he began to rewrite history without the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned to the hockey-stick chart.

"He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band," Solomon explains. "Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world's most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period."

Through his role as a Wikipedia administrator, Connolley is said to have created or rewritten 5,428 unique Wikipedia entries.

"When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it – more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand," Solomon wrote. "When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred – over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions."

Meanwhile, followers who adhered to Connolley's climate views "were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings," Solomon contends.

Through his control of the Wikipedia pages, Connolley is said to have "turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement."

Facts about the Medieval Warm Period and criticism of global warming doctrine were purportedly scrubbed from Wikipedia's pages.

For those who claim that ClimateGate "doesn't change the science," you might want to think again. Suppressing contradictory information does, in fact, change the science.

In my opinion, the fact that they felt they had to rewrite history and remove contradictory studies shows that their theory is false... and that they know it.

Read the rest...

HB47: Health Care Freedom Act!

If you'll remember, in July I wrote and blogged about my "Health Care Freedom Act of 2010," which was intended to be an amendment to the Alabama Constitution.
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2009/07/alabama-health-care-freedom-act-of-2010.html

To date, no legislator has agreed to sponsor my amendment for the upcoming session.

HOWEVER.

It seems that Representative Gipson has sponsored a measure that is VERY similar to the one that I authored in July. Rep Gipson's bill is HB47 and is already pre-filed with the Legislature. The bill has no co-sponsors at this time, but let's see if we can change that.

I would also like to note that Rep Bentley has also pre-filed HB42, which is a similar amendment, but Rep Gipson's appears to be the more complete of the two.

It's time to get moving on this one, as the Legislature convenes on January 12. Call your Representatives and see if we can get some co-sponsors for Gipson's HB47. Also contact your Senators and see if we can get some companion legislation introduced into the Senate.

Let's go, guys. I'm making my calls, but I can't do it alone.


Read the rest...

Is Obama Nobel Unconstitutional?

Okay, who is familiar with the United States Constitution? I refer specifically to Article I, Section, which states in part:

And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State. …"

The Nobel prize comes complete with a cash prize and a rather valuable gold medal, so it is unquestionably an "emolument." Doesn't that make Obama's acceptance of the Nobel prize a violation of the Constitution?

Joseph Farah makes that case in an opinion piece published today.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119696

Most Americans may not realize, as I did not until very recently, that the Nobel commission is elected by the parliament of Norway. That means the peace prize is made by a commission representing the legislature of a foreign state. There's little question the award amounts to an emolument – at nearly $1.5 million and a priceless gold medal.

Back in 1902, the U.S. attorney general advised that even "a simple remembrance" qualified as an emolument – "any present of any kind whatever." In 1993, President Bill Clinton's legal counsel affirmed that finding and explained that the text of the clause does not limit "its application solely to foreign governments acting as sovereigns" – but even when foreign governments work through other devices and organizations.

When I first heard about this, I was somewhat mollified by the fact that Obama announced he would give the money to charity.

But there are four big problems with that:

- It's not his money to give away. If he files for a tax deduction for the prize money, as he surely will, it would reduce his income taxes by about a half-million dollars.

- A federal statute states that if the president accepts a "tangible or intangible present" for more than a minimal value from any foreign government, the gift "shall become the property of the United States."

- No mention was ever made of turning over the gold medal to charity or to the government of the United States.

- He did not get the consent of the Congress of the United States.

Why is that last one so important?

Because it's the law of the land.

This is just another example of the Obama administration doing what he wants to do without regards for the legality of his actions. Accepting this award without prior Congressional approval is a clear violation of the US Constitution, which prompts me once again to pose this question:

If the President of the United States does not have to obey the laws of this land, why should the rest of us be expected to do so? If he can choose to simply ignore an inconvenient law, why can't we?

Defense lawyers take note... call this one the "Obama Defense."

I wish I could say that PresBo respects our Constitution and our laws, but the plain fact is that he doesn't. He is more interested in exercising as much power as he can than he is in observing limitations on that power.

Read the rest...

ACORN Qualifies For Funding Under ObamaCare

Acorn isn't dead yet. Apparently, Congress isn't serious about denying them funding, because the soon-to-be-passed Senate ObamaCare bill would allow Acorn access to taxpayer dollars.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/exclusive_acorn_qualifies_for_1.asp

According to page 241 of the amendment:

In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary, acting through the Deputy Assistant Secretary, shall award grants, contracts, enter into memoranda of understanding, cooperative, interagency, intra-agency and other agreements with public and nonprofit private entities, agencies, as well as Departmental and Cabinet agencies and organizations, and with organizations that are indigenous human resource providers in communities of color to assure improved health status of racial and ethnic minorities, and shall develop measures to evaluate the effectiveness of activities aimed at reducing health disparities and supporting the local community. Such measures shall evaluate community outreach activities, language services, workforce cultural competence, and other areas as determined by the Secretary.’’

According to a Senate legislative aide, the scandal-plagued Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now could qualify for grants under this provision. ACORN would also qualify for funding on page 150 of the underlying Reid bill, which says that "community and consumer-focused nonprofit groups" may receive grants to "conduct public education activities to raise awareness of the availability of qualified health plans."

So Acorn gets even MORE money. Gee, how inspiring is THAT?


Read the rest...

Breaking: Parker Griffith Switches To GOP

I don't know if this is early fallout from the ObamaCare fight or just an aberration, but US Representative Parker Griffith (D-AL) is announcing that he will switch parties and become a Republican.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30896.html

POLITICO has learned that Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman Democrat from Alabama, will announce today that he’s switching parties to become a Republican.

According to two senior GOP aides familiar with the decision, the announcement will take place this afternoon in Griffith's district in northern Alabama.

Griffith’s party switch comes on the eve of a pivotal congressional health care vote and will send a jolt through a Democratic House Caucus that has already been unnerved by the recent retirements of a handful of members who, like Griffith, hail from districts that offer prime pickup opportunities for the GOP in 2010.

The switch represents a coup for the House Republican leadership, which had been courting Griffith since he publicly criticized the Democratic leadership in the wake of raucous town halls during the summer.

Griffith, who captured the seat in a close 2008 open seat contest, will become the first Republican to hold the historically Democratic, Huntsville-based district. A radiation oncologist who founded a cancer treatment center, Griffith plans to blast the Democratic health care bill as a prime reason for his decision to switch parties—and is expected to cite his medical background as his authority on the subject.

While the timing of his announcement was unexpected, Griffith’s party switch will not come as a surprise to those familiar with his voting record, which is one of the most conservative among Democrats.

He has bucked the Democratic leadership on nearly all of its major domestic initiatives, including the stimulus package, health care legislation, the cap-and trade energy bill and financial regulatory reform.

He was one of only 11 House Democrats to vote against the stimulus.

Okay, let's analyze this. From a practical perspective, his defection doesn't change the math in the House very much, and since his voting record was so "conservative" the leadership isn't losing a staunch supporter. From a morale perspective, his defection could start other blue dogs thinking along the same lines.


Either way, numerically his defection doesn't hurt the Democrats very much... nor does it help the Republicans very much.

On to motives... WHY did he do this? We're left with two options: 1) he's always been a conservative at heart but ran as a Democrat because he had a better chance of getting elected, or 2) he thinks he'll lose re-election as a Democrat and thinks his chances are better as a Republican.

I don't have enough information to choose between the two options, but my native skepticism towards the motives of politicians has me leaning toward the second option.

And I confess that I retain my basic objections to party switchers of ANY stripe. Running candidates or accepting politicians into a party who are not in line with the party's basic ideological tenets results in a changing of the core beliefs. In this instance, it moves the Republican party to left and makes it more liberal. Especially at this time in our history, when the Democrats are more liberal than they should be, we don't need another liberal party. For heaven's sake, we need a party who will not only CLAIM to believe in small government and fiscal responsibility, but also govern that way when they are in power. The Democrats won't and the Republicans haven't, but we stand a better chance of achieving fiscal sanity with Republicans than we do with Democrats.

I don't know if Griffith will be part of that leftward shift or if he really is a conservative... but my skepticism remains.

But if nothing else this should warn the Democrats that their solidarity is illusion, and that 2010 is going to be very rough on them if they remain on their current course.

Read the rest...

Ignore Optimists, House Won't Kill ObamaCare

The Senate is in the process of passing their ObamaCare bill, and we've all seen the headlines proclaiming that this issue (abortion), that issue (deficit), or something else entirely COULD cause the House to kill ObamaCare by rejecting the Senate bill and losing votes in the Senate.

As I was writing this, I even received an email "alert" announcing that "we can still stop ObamaCare."

I'm here to tell you that it won't happen.

After the Senate passes the bill, the House will basically accept what the Senate offers. Why? Because bills to amend ObamaCare to make it more liberally acceptable will be submitted before the ink is dry on the President's signature. Why jeopardize the bill's passage when they can make changes to the law later?

So that's what will happen. They MIGHT wait until after the 2010 elections to begin that process, but I wouldn't count on it.


Once the question over WHETHER OR NOT the government should run health care has been settled, which it essentially will be once this law passes, then the issue becomes HOW MUCH control should it have. And the liberals think that everything about our health care system, from insurance to medical care, should be controlled by government bureaucrats. They'll begin moving pretty quickly to realize their lifelong dream.

The American people do not support this government takeover of health care... 91% are satisfied with their current health care, and 44% think that doing NOTHING on health care reform is better than passing the ObamaCare bills currently in Congress. (For the record, 41% disagree and think ObamaCare should pass.) But that doesn't matter to the liberals in charge.

After all, they know best, and it's for our own good.

Yeah, right.

Read the rest...

Single-Payer On The Way

The major problem with the ObamaCare bill isn't any single provision that somebody happens not to like. Instead, the major problem is that Democrats are planning to expand the existing bill over time until we have a single-payer system in the United States. That means no more private insurance or medical care... all that will be provided by the government. This is something that many people have suspected would happen, but we were dismissed as crazies for even SUSPECTING that a single-payer system was the ultimate goal.

Now we find out that... well, we were right. Democrats and liberals are now admitting that this bill is just the first step and that they want to increase government control of health care even further.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/21/democrats-break-ground

"This is not the end of health care reform," Sen. Tom Harkin declared on the Senate floor after midnight this morning. "This is the beginning of health care reform."

Harkin was attempting to convince restive liberals that even a scaled back health care bill that did not include their beloved public option was still worth passing. But his comments, along with those made by other Senate Democrats in the week leading up to this morning's 1 a.m. vote to advance the Senate health care bill, confirmed what critics have been saying throughout the health care debate.

The point isn't that this one piece of legislation, on its own, will impose a Canadian-style, government-run health care system on the United States immediately. The point is that Democrats are putting infrastructure in place that will allow them to implement a government-run system over time.

Still don't believe us? Listen to liberals talking... in their own words.

"What we need to do is lay a strong foundation," Sen. Ron Wyden said in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow last week. "A foundation that we can build on in the years ahead. We are not going to get everything we want in round one, but we are going to get a foundation that we are going to build on in the years ahead."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller told the New Republic "that liberal advocates could try again another year to push for the reforms that didn't make it into the current bill." He said, "You know we're going to be back next year, and the year after that, and the year after that."

And in comments on the Senate floor on Friday, Sen. John Kerry argued that Democrats shouldn’t even wait that long. Kerry recalled how Sen. Ted Kennedy regretted he never accepted a deal President Richard Nixon offered that would have forced employers to insure everybody, with some help from government.

"The lesson Teddy learned is this," Kerry explained. "When it comes to historic breakthroughs in America, especially in social policies, you make the best deal that you can, and immediately, you start pushing for ways to improve the deal."

Kerry said Kennedy applied that lesson after successfully fighting for a minimum wage increase in 1996, only to turn around and immediately call for another increase while at a victory rally.

"He was in the victory moment, and he turned to Congresman George Miller, and he said, 'I'm introducing a bill to raise the minimum wage,'" Kerry recounted. "And George Miller said, 'What do you mean? You haven't even let the dust settle?' And (Kennedy) said, 'We've gotta move on this.'"

The same logic, Kerry said, should apply to passing health care legislation. And as evidence, he noted that Medicare and Medicaid have greatly expanded over time.

They WANT this single-payer system, and will work unceasingly to get it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30871.html

Once a bill is enacted, we must demand more steps to provide immediate relief to Americans before the exchanges are operational nearly a half-decade from now. And we must fight to revive the public option to deliver on reform’s promise of cost control and accountability for insurers.

We have a once-in-a-generation moment to pass reform, and we must seize it. But what we pass must be understood as only a step — an important but ultimately incomplete step — toward the goals that the inspiring campaign for the public option embodied.

And make no mistake: If Republicans agree to future "compromises," they will be co-conspiritors in the socialization of American medicine. The ONLY way to deal with this is to push strongly for a total repeal of this atrocious law as soon as it can be accomplished.

Single-payer is coming... and we did it to ourselves by electing the intellectual defectives who actually think it's moral to force this kind of system on an unwilling populace.

Read the rest...

Medicare Denials Higher Than Private Insurers

One of the "reasons" we've heard why some sort of government option must be offered is because private insurers are denying claims. It's an interesting claim, but when you look at the actual data, you find that Medicare denies more claims than private insurers do.
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459

According to the American Medical Association’s National Health Insurer Report Card for 2008, the government’s health plan, Medicare, denied medical claims at nearly double the average for private insurers: Medicare denied 6.85% of claims. The highest private insurance denier was Aetna @ 6.8%, followed by Anthem Blue Cross @ 3.44, with an average denial rate of medical claims by private insurers of 3.88%

In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that Medicare denied only 4% of claims—a big improvement, but outpaced better still by the private insurers. The prior year’s high private denier, Aetna, reduced denials to 1.81%—an astounding 75% improvement—with similar declines by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%.

Maybe there’s something to be said for the need to keep your customers satisfied in order to make that profit after all.

Amen.


Read the rest...

Many Tax Increases In ObamaCare

Did you realize that there are many tax increases buried in the Senate's ObamaCare bill? For example, indoor tanning salons will have to pay a brand new 10% excise tax... which will promptly be passed along to customers. For a complete list of taxes being levied, check here:
http://www.atr.org/news-comprehensive-list-tax-hikes-inbr-a4345#

It is important to realize that most of the new taxes hit LONG before any of the "benefits" kick in. So the first impact of this plan that we will see is tax increases... and the resultant economic reaction.

Guys, it is time and PAST time to make your opinion known. The American public does NOT want this bill, and you MUST speak out and let Congress know!


Read the rest...

ObamaCare Gets 60 Votes, Clears Procedural Hurdle

As I predicted, the carrot & stick approach to legislation taken by the Democrats has paid off... after some carefully considered bribes (in the form of benefits to their states) were paid to recalcitrant Senators. The vote was taken very early this morning, with 60 Democrats voting "yea" and 40 Republicans voting "nay."

Isn't wonderful how bipartisan and non-divisive PresBo is during the first year of his reign?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30850.html

The Democratic Party’s decades-long push to remake the U.S. health care system cleared a major hurdle early Monday morning, with the Senate voting to advance a massive $871 billion bill to extend coverage to nearly all Americans and tighten regulations on private insurers.

Less than two days after releasing a bill with 383 pages of changes, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) corralled his politically diverse caucus and delivered the 60 votes necessary for the most crucial test vote in the legislative process so far — effectively assuring the reform package will clear the Senate later this week.

The final tally was a straight party-line vote, 60-40. All Democrats and two independents voted yes and all Republicans voted no – and each side bitterly accused the other of trying to thwart true reform through petty gamesmanship.

The senators voted just after 1 a.m. while seated at their desks, a rarely used practice implemented only for historic votes.

I want to point out the unbridled haste that Democrats are employing in order to keep the public from finding out the details of this legislation prior to its passage. Remember that what they voted on was only released two days or so before, and had been negotiated in secret. Nobody knew what was in it and, to be honest, few really cared. Republicans were already opposed to it, and Democrats were going to vote yes just to have SOMETHING they could point to and claim as "health care reform."

Developing legislation in secret and rushing votes through so quickly that nobody knows what is in the bill is unconscionable. Democrats had to bribe the last few Senators to get the votes, and the majority of Americans DO NOT WANT THIS TRAVESTY FORCED UPON THEM!

Is this "change we can believe in," or is it partisan business as usual? Does the passage of this bill generate "Hope" in the hearts of Americans, or are most of us unhappy with the piece of garbage that Democrats are calling our new health care system?

Here's hoping that the GOP selects GOOD, fiscally conservative candidates for 2010, and that those candidates win their bids for office. With any luck, enough Congressmen can get together next year to repeal this monstrosity before it takes full effect.

Read the rest...

Legislature To Face Budget Problems In January

As anybody who's been following news on our economic situation could have easily predicted, Alabama's fiscal situation for next year is going to be a problem. The severe impact the recession has had on our State has resulted in very high unemployment and falling tax revenue. In other words, the State will have to either reduce spending or raise taxes.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20091220/NEWS02/912200322/1009

When lawmakers begin assembling the budget for the 2011 fiscal year, the Legislative Fiscal Office predicts there will be a more than $600 million hole in the General Fund budget that is used to operate state prisons and fund state troopers, Medicaid and most other non-education state government functions.

But the department heads who went before lawmakers to make their case during hearings last week requested several hundred million dollars in new funding.

I hate to be the one to break the news, but this state cannot AFFORD "several hundred million dollars in new funding."


Start making plans to cut funding. Raising taxes in our current economic climate will make things worse, not better. So drop the plans for spending increases and start looking at ways to reduce expenditures.

If you look at the announcements from department heads, they're playing the scare game again. Take, for example, this statement on the education system.

Joe Morton, state superintendent of education, said K-12 education will need $235 million in additional funding or the state would be forced to cut 3,543 state-funded teaching positions and increase class sizes.

Firing teachers is one of the top "scare the parents" tactics they can use, second only behind "eliminate sports programs." But notice there is no mention of trimming administrators or cutting costs by eliminating non-educational programs. Nope, they forecast the "scariest" plan to maybe convince taxpayers it's time to cough up some more dough.

Next year is going to be a tough one. We'll have to keep on eye on our own Legislature as well as Congress to make sure they don't sock it to us in a major way.

Read the rest...

Reid Bribed Senators To Support ObamaCare

Isn't it strange that bribery is SUPPOSED to be a bad thing, and yet it happens every day in the United States Congress? When Democrat leaders were trying to get votes to pass their ObamaCare bill, they bribed Representatives with funding and special provisions. Anything to get it passed.

Now the Senate has done the same thing. Senators Nelson, Sanders, and Levin all received special considerations (i.e. bribes) to switch their votes.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30815.html

Ben Nelson’s “Cornhusker Kickback,” as the GOP is calling it, got all the attention Saturday, but other senators lined up for deals as Majority Leader Harry Reid corralled the last few votes for a health reform package.

Nelson’s might be the most blatant – a deal carved out for a single state, a permanent exemption from the state share of Medicaid expansion for Nebraska, meaning federal taxpayers have to kick in an additional $45 million in the first decade.

But another Democratic holdout, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), took credit for $10 billion in new funding for community health centers, while denying it was a “sweetheart deal.” He was clearly more enthusiastic about a bill he said he couldn’t support just three days ago.

Nelson and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) carved out an exemption for non-profit insurers in their states from a hefty excise tax. Similar insurers in the other 48 states will pay the tax.

Vermont and Massachusetts were given additional Medicaid funding, another plus for Sanders and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Three states – Pennsylvania, New York and Florida – all won protections for their Medicare Advantage beneficiaries at a time when the program is facing cuts nationwide.

All of this came on top of a $300 million increase for Medicaid in Louisiana, designed to win the vote of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu.

Under pressure from the White House to get a deal done by Christmas, Reid was unapologetic. He argued that, by definition, legislating means deal making and defended the special treatment for Nelson’s home state of Nebraska.

Reid may call it "legislating," but I call it bribery. From the dictionary, a bribe is:

1. money or any other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting the behavior of a person, esp. in that person's performance as an athlete, public official, etc.: The motorist offered the arresting officer a bribe to let him go.

2. anything given or serving to persuade or induce: The children were given candy as a bribe to be good.

Now, keeping in mind what Reid gave those three Senators, all of whom had previously opposed the bill at one point or another, you be the judge. Did Reid bribe them?

I think he did. But what do YOU think?

Read the rest...

Not So Fast: Opposition Building To Nelson Compromise

And the ping-pong game on ObamaCare continues.

As you no doubt recall, last night Reid announced that a compromise measure on abortion had been reached with Senator Nelson, and Democrats started crowing immediately that they had reached 60 votes... even though Nelson said his agreement depends upon the actual legislative language.
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2009/12/reid-unveils-bill-claims-nelson-on.html

Now we're seeing opposition being roused to the compromise language, organized by aids to Representative Stupak.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30811.html

An aide to Rep. Bart Stupak (D. Mich.) coordinated opposition to the Senate health bill’s abortion compromise this morning with the Republican Senate leadership according to a chain of frantic emails obtained this morning by POLITICO.

Stupak, in an interview with POLITICO, called the Senate’s bill’s abortion position "unacceptable" – but disavowed his staffer’s collaboration with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

And opposition letters written by concerned groups have already been released.

Douglas Johnson, an official at the National Right to Life Committee, a group whose staffers were looped on Smith’s email, released a statement Saturday afternoon calling the Senate compromise “light years” away from Stupak's amendment. The president of the Susan B. Anthony List said the bill “is not ‘compromise’ or ‘middle ground’ – it is a betrayal of conscience for millions of Americans.”

“The new abortion language solves none of the fundamental abortion-related problems with the Senate bill, and it actually creates some new abortion-related problems,” he said.

The head of Planned Parenthood called it “a sad day when women’s health is traded away for one vote,” adding that “there is no policy reason for this action, it is simply a political maneuver.” And the National Organization of Women sent out a release calling the provision “every bit as bad as the infamous House-passed Stupak-Pitts Amendment.”

Although Stupak is in the House, not the Senate, anti-abortion groups will likely be lobbying Nelson to reject the "compromise" agreement negotiated with Reid.

Does this mean Nelson will NOT support the bill? No, of course it doesn't. But it does mean that anti-abortion groups will be telling Nelson their opinion. That pressure might matter, and it might not.

Isn't this fun?

Read the rest...

Obama's Climate Agreement: Failure

So PresBo ran to Copenhagen and used all of his eloquence and personal power to ram through a climate change agreement. When he was finished, PresBo called the agreement "historic" and "unprecedented."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34488054/ns/world_news-washington_post

President Obama helped broker a climate deal with a group of leading nations that provides for monitoring emission cuts by each country but sets no global target for cutting greenhouse gases, and no deadline for reaching a formal international climate treaty.

The deal falls far short of many countries' expectations for the summit and leaves a comprehensive battle plan for climate change potentially years away. Although the agreement included some major players -- China, India, Brazil and South Africa -- it was not universally agreed upon by the 193 nations attending the summit. In fact, some leaders left early Friday in apparent frustration

The agreement? Forget entirely about emission caps, the agreement simply establishes carbon MONITORING... and it's not even binding.

"Today we made a meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough here in Copenhagen," he said. But, he added, "It is going to be very hard, and it's going to take some time" to get a legally binding treaty. That, he said, "was not achievable at this conference."

And because it's non-binding, Presbo's signature is meaningless... and may not even be required... he said so himself.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30794.html

“You know, it raises an interesting question as to whether technically there's actually a signature… It's not a legally binding agreement, I don't know what the protocols are,” said a bleary-eyed Obama, before hopping in Air Force One for the trip back to Washington.

For the record, I am glad that the Copenhagen Summit produced no strict and legally binding treaty to be placed in front of the current disgrace we call a Senate. The science of man-caused global warming has been repeatedly called into doubt, especially in recent weeks, and taking political action on what amounts to a shakily defended THEORY is inexcusable.

That said, the agreement that PresBo personally advocated and pushed was so far from what the Summit was INTENDED to achieve that it is laughable. They WANTED a binding agreement to drastically cut emissions. They GOT a non-binding agreement to allow emissions monitoring. Wow... that certainly is historic and unprecedented.

But then, everything that PresBo does is historic and unprecedented... just ask him.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29896.html

Read the rest...

Reid Unveils Bill, Claims Nelson On Board

As you know, Harry Reid has been working in secret for almost two weeks to complete a bill that can win Senator Ben Nelson's vote. He unveiled that legislation, which will be introduced as a "manager's amendment" to modify the bill that the Senate has been working on. He hopes to have a vote taken by Sunday night.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30807.html

The bill would call for the creation of national health insurance exchance that would allow people to shop for insurance, subsidies to help low-income people buy insurance and an expansion of Medicaid. It does not include the government-run health insurance option that Nelson and other moderates objected to - and its absence has drawn fire from liberal critics who say the bill doesn't amount to true reform.

And as I fully expected (and as I warned you), the combination of carrot and stick was too much for Senator Nelson to resist, and the word is now that he will support the bill... though oddly enough, he denies it and says he has to read the actual wording of the bill.

Senate Democrats reached a deal with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) Friday night to move forward with a health care reform bill, clearing the way for a series of votes on the landmark legislation next week, said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y).

Schumer told reporters in the Capitol that the deal was finalized late Friday night, with a handshake at 10:30 p.m. The negotiations included Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Schumer, Nelson and White House officials Pete Rouse and Jim Messina ended after a marathon 13 hours of talks.

"There were many times they thought they couldn't come to an agreement," Schumer said. "We are now for the first time really feeling good. I think every Democrat realized whatever his or her views, we had to get this done."

But Schumer made clear the negotiations, which centered on abortion funding and Medicaid expansion were touch and go. "There were several times in that room where we thought we wouldn't have a deal," he said.

And in fact, Nelson left the Capitol about 10 p.m. telling reporters there wasn't deal - at least not a final one — and that all sides had to sleep on it.

If you'd like to read the amendment, here it is:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM145_chris.html

This bill will pass, friends, as I've maintained for a while. Conservatives don't like the bill, independents have been rejecting it in recent polls, and recently we've seen numerous influential liberals saying the Senate bill should be killed.
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2009/12/liberals-rejecting-obamacare.html

And add to that list Move On.org, who recently added their voice to liberal calls to reject the Senate bill.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/MoveOn_opposes_Senate_bill.html

The Senate has NO public support for this bill at all. If you want my opinion, and you do, I believe that the route to victory in the 2010 elections for fiscally conservative candidates is to promise to vote in favor of repealing the horrible ObamaCare that nobody wants.

Take note of that, prospective Congressional candidates...

UPDATE: And it turns out that Nelson's "carrot" included extra federal funding for Nebraska. Bribery again...

That gave Nelson enormous leverage as he pressed for concessions that included stronger restrictions on abortions to be covered by insurance policies offered in a newly overhauled health care system. Officials said he was also seeking to ease the impact of a proposed insurance industry tax on nonprofit companies, as well as win more federal funds to cover Nebraska's cost of treating patients in Medicaid, the state-federal health care program for the poor. These officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks, said the administration and Democratic leaders had offered concessions on those points.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34479067/ns/politics-health_care_reform

Read the rest...

Dems Rushing An Invisible Bill

Have you considered this aspect of the Senate Health Care debate? They're rushing hard to meet an artificial Christmas deadline... primarily because a 2009 passage is better for the Democrat party than extending debate into 2010. This is a HUGE bill that will affect 1/6th of the US economy and impact each and every one of us... but speed is more important to the Democrats than a well-crafted bill.

Add to that the fact that the Senate doesn't know what they're voting on. Oh sure, they have the original bill, but Reid has already announced he's working on modifications to it that he'll introduce shortly... but almost nobody has seen it and knows what is in it.

Here are some comments made by Senator McConnell on the Senate floor:
http://mcconnell.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=320943&start=1

“Senators on both sides acknowledge that the health care bill we’re considering is among the most significant pieces of legislation any of us will ever consider.

“So it stands to reason that we’d devote significant time and attention to it.

“Indeed, some would argue that we should spend more time and attention on this bill than most — if not every — previous bill we’ve considered.

“The Majority disagrees.

“Why? Because this bill has become a political nightmare for them.

“They know Americans overwhelmingly oppose it, so they want to get it over with.

“Americans are already outraged at the fact that Democrat leaders took their eyes off the ball. Rushing the process on a partisan line makes the situation even worse.

“Americans were told the purpose of reform was to reduce the cost of health care.

“Instead, Democrat leaders produced a $2.5 trillion, 2,074-page monstrosity that vastly expands government, raises taxes, raises premiums, and wrecks Medicare.

“And they want to rush this bill through by Christmas — one of the most significant, far-reaching pieces of legislation in U.S. history. They want to rush it.

“And here’s the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader’s conference room has even seen.

“That’s right. The final bill we’ll vote on isn’t even the one we’ve had on the floor. It’s the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private.

“That’s what they intend to bring to the floor and force a vote on before Christmas.

Isn't it lovely? Reid is working privately to develop a bill and isn't letting ANYBODY see what's in it. He's going back and forth with the CBO about their cost estimate, and not telling anybody what's happening. He's meeting privately with members of Congress, but not telling anybody what was discussed or what agreements were reached.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30764.html

He’s having private, one-on-one conversations with colleagues, and he’s not sharing the contents with others. He’s floating proposals to congressional budget analysts that not even members of his leadership team have seen. And he’s keeping his strategy largely to himself.

He wants to start the process TOMORROW, but nobody has seen the bill! Why do you think this is?

Personally, I think it's because the Democrats have discovered that, the more Americans learn about this bill, the less they support it, so they're trying to sneak this one by before we really know what's going on. Forget transparency, this administration and Congressional leadership want things their way, period. Whether it's good policy or not, whether we WANT it or not.

That's not the America that I have grown up loving and respecting. What about you?

Read the rest...

European Carbon Trading System Run By Mob

As you know, PresBo wants to implement a Cap & Trade system of carbon trading in order to curb carbon emissions and fight global warming. I think it is useful, therefore, to look at other such systems already in place to find out how they are doing.

It turns out, however, that the European Union (EU) carbon trading system is rife with fraud and almost completely controlled by organized crime.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-european-carbon-credit-trading-system-plagued-by-fraud/

The European Union’s flagship cap-and-trade carbon credit trading system is plagued by massive fraud and is effectively under the control of organized crime, according to a December 9 statement issued by European police. Europol, an EU-wide criminal intelligence agency similar to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, says bogus trading at the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) has exceeded €5 billion (U.S.$7 billion) over the past 18 months alone. Europol says that in some EU countries, up to 90 percent of the entire market volume is fraudulent.

Coming soon to a country near you... courtesy of President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats.


Read the rest...

Communists At Copenhagen

If you've been following the news on the global warming conference in Copenhagen, you know that many protesters have been well... protesting. Mostly in FAVOR of draconian regulations to restrict "global warming." But did you know that many of the protesters were self-declared communists and socialists? Further, did you know that according to those protesters, the enemy to be killed is capitalism?

Here's a video that might prove interesting?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNQqUACJ_Kw&feature=player_embedded



So, for all of you out there who want something done about global warming but are still kind of fond of our capitalist system, be aware of who you're climbing into bed with.


Read the rest...