Senator Dixon introduced SB153, which would legalize the production of homemade beer and wine for personal consumption in Alabama. The bill has passed the State Senate and is currently in the House Tourism and Travel Committee. This is a good bill.
You have to understand that homemade beer and wine has been legal for YEARS under Federal law. People are permitted to make up to 250 gallons per year for their own consumption. Alabama's state law, however, currently prohibits the home production of wine and beer. Why? Taxes and sales. They can't tax homemade wine, and if you make it you may stop buying it.
Senator Dixon's bill, SB153, would bring state law in line with federal law, and allow the production of up to 250 gallons of wine per year. It would also allow for its "use at organized events, such as homebrewing competitions, tastings, judgings,
and craft exhibitions."
You can view the bill as passed by the Senate here.
This is a good bill that deserves to be passed by the House and signed by the Governor. It increases individual freedom and allows for activities (tastings and competitions) that would attract tourists and provide both economic activity and prestige to the state.
I recommend that SB153 passes.
Read the rest...
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Dems Vow To Pass ObamaCare... But Can They?
Okay, the summit didn't change much. Obama and the Democrats needed a home run, something they could use as a clear-cut justification for using the reconciliation process to pass ObamaCare. They didn't get it. In fact, many believe the Republicans got the most out of the event.
In fact, according to this article, ObamaCare is dead. Lots of links to supporting news articles.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/26/morning-bell-someone-needs-to-tell-the-president-his-health-care-plan-is-dead/
Dems are nevertheless vowing to move forward with reconciliation, and are promising a plan next week. But the stumbling blocks here are whether or not DEMOCRATS will coalesce around the bill and support it in sufficient numbers.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33622.html
But we've heard this before. Keep in mind that we're hearing the leadership assuring us that the bill will pass... but they've done this before, even as we find out that Congressional Democrats weren't committing to anything their leadership was saying. Will this be the same thing? At this point it's difficult to tell.
But the dynamics haven't changed. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have been pushing hard for ObamaCare, and they are both in major trouble for the re-election bids. Democrats still need to be nervous about voter backlash, especially since EVERY poll shows that a majority don't want the current bills to pass, particularly through reconciliation.
So we'll need to keep monitoring this situation. The smart thing to do would be to abandon this bill and start bipartisan negotiations for a more balanced bill. But the Democrats can't do that because they're afraid it will look like a defeat... and they are more worried about their party experiencing a defeat than they are about passing a balanced and effective bill that the public supports.
Forget Americans... they're DEMOCRATS FIRST!!!!!
Read the rest...
In fact, according to this article, ObamaCare is dead. Lots of links to supporting news articles.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/26/morning-bell-someone-needs-to-tell-the-president-his-health-care-plan-is-dead/
The day before yesterday’s White House health care summit, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) told reporters: “The only way this works is for the House to pass the Senate bill and then, depending on what the package is, the reconciliation provision that moves first through the House and then comes here.” When Conrad was reminded that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has repeatedly insisted that the House will not pass the Senate bill until the Senate passes a second bill that fixes the first, Conrad replied: “Fine, then it’s dead.”
This was the dynamic that President Barack Obama was trying to alter with his eventually-seven-hour meeting. And judging by pretty much every major news outlet, he completely failed. Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA), who is one of the 39 House Democrats that the White House needs to switch from a “no” the first time around to a “yes” this time, told The New York Times: “I don’t see very many at all who voted no who are going to switch their votes unless there are substantial changes in the bill.”
And that reality is already spreading throughout Capitol Hill. Politico reports that while Democrats were hoping to pass Obamacare by Easter, “there were signs Thursday night that the schedule was slipping. One Democratic lawmaker involved in the negotiations, who asked not to be identified to speak candidly of the process, said the party would not, in fact, start down the path of reconciliation next week.”
Dems are nevertheless vowing to move forward with reconciliation, and are promising a plan next week. But the stumbling blocks here are whether or not DEMOCRATS will coalesce around the bill and support it in sufficient numbers.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33622.html
A day after the White House health summit, congressional Democrats sounded more committed than ever to passing health reform by short-circuiting Senate supermajority rules — but still hadn’t figured out which chamber would have to go first, the House or the Senate.
The White House said Friday that President Barack Obama will announce the next step in passing a bill by mid-week, even though he offered Republicans as much as six weeks to offer ideas on a bill during the summit.
And Pelosi promised that Democrats will move quickly to coalesce around a bill. “When we have a bill, which we will in a matter of days, then that is the bill that we can sell,” Pelosi said in an interview with CNN airing Sunday.
But we've heard this before. Keep in mind that we're hearing the leadership assuring us that the bill will pass... but they've done this before, even as we find out that Congressional Democrats weren't committing to anything their leadership was saying. Will this be the same thing? At this point it's difficult to tell.
But the dynamics haven't changed. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have been pushing hard for ObamaCare, and they are both in major trouble for the re-election bids. Democrats still need to be nervous about voter backlash, especially since EVERY poll shows that a majority don't want the current bills to pass, particularly through reconciliation.
So we'll need to keep monitoring this situation. The smart thing to do would be to abandon this bill and start bipartisan negotiations for a more balanced bill. But the Democrats can't do that because they're afraid it will look like a defeat... and they are more worried about their party experiencing a defeat than they are about passing a balanced and effective bill that the public supports.
Forget Americans... they're DEMOCRATS FIRST!!!!!
Read the rest...
Friday, February 26, 2010
SCOTUS To Hear Landmark Gun Rights Case
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear a case next week that could decide whether the Second Amendment means ordinary Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.
Not confused, are you? I know, I can hear you out there right now saying that THAT question was answered during the 2008 DC v Heller case. Actually, though the decision in Heller DID say that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right, it applied that decision only to "federal envclaves" such as Washington DC. Left unaddressed was whether or not the same right is binding on states.
Let's review. When the bill of rights was originally passed, it applied only to federal laws and areas. But then came the 14th amendment... you remember that one, surely? The relevant portion of that amendment is section 1.
This section introduces the idea of "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States." Now, what could those be? If you answered the protections included in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you'd be right. The 14th amendment changed the game, as courts quickly began to realize and rule accordingly, inasmuch as states would no longer be allowed to pass laws that infringed on our Constitutional rights.
The first right so addressed was the right of free speech... right, that's the First Amendment. And gradually over the years, one right after another was "incorporated" into the 14th amendment. But so far, the Second Amendment has not been so incorporated.
And now that SCOTUS has ruled that the Second Amendment does, in fact, refer to an individual right, whether or not states must honor that right becomes a very important issue. After all, what good is a "constitutional right" that any state can ignore and pass a law against?
You see, Chicago does not allow the possession of handguns by private citizens in their own homes. They passed that law in 1982. Mr. Otis McDonald lives in a very bad neighborhood, and wants a gun for self-protection... he is suing the city for violation of his Second Amendment rights. Both the lower court and the appeals court ruled against him, and SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case.
You can view the case summary here.
This could easily be the most significant case they hear this year, and the court will hear oral arguments this coming Tuesday, March 2.
Make no mistake, this is a pivotal decision... if they rule against McDonald, it means that the Second Amendment is a 2nd-class Constitutional right. Such a ruling would mean the Second Amendment is a right in name only, because in reality any state could pass a law disarming every citizen.
So this is a case to watch, and I'll be mentioning it as the year progresses.
Read the rest...
Not confused, are you? I know, I can hear you out there right now saying that THAT question was answered during the 2008 DC v Heller case. Actually, though the decision in Heller DID say that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right, it applied that decision only to "federal envclaves" such as Washington DC. Left unaddressed was whether or not the same right is binding on states.
Let's review. When the bill of rights was originally passed, it applied only to federal laws and areas. But then came the 14th amendment... you remember that one, surely? The relevant portion of that amendment is section 1.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This section introduces the idea of "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States." Now, what could those be? If you answered the protections included in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you'd be right. The 14th amendment changed the game, as courts quickly began to realize and rule accordingly, inasmuch as states would no longer be allowed to pass laws that infringed on our Constitutional rights.
The first right so addressed was the right of free speech... right, that's the First Amendment. And gradually over the years, one right after another was "incorporated" into the 14th amendment. But so far, the Second Amendment has not been so incorporated.
And now that SCOTUS has ruled that the Second Amendment does, in fact, refer to an individual right, whether or not states must honor that right becomes a very important issue. After all, what good is a "constitutional right" that any state can ignore and pass a law against?
You see, Chicago does not allow the possession of handguns by private citizens in their own homes. They passed that law in 1982. Mr. Otis McDonald lives in a very bad neighborhood, and wants a gun for self-protection... he is suing the city for violation of his Second Amendment rights. Both the lower court and the appeals court ruled against him, and SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case.
You can view the case summary here.
This could easily be the most significant case they hear this year, and the court will hear oral arguments this coming Tuesday, March 2.
Make no mistake, this is a pivotal decision... if they rule against McDonald, it means that the Second Amendment is a 2nd-class Constitutional right. Such a ruling would mean the Second Amendment is a right in name only, because in reality any state could pass a law disarming every citizen.
So this is a case to watch, and I'll be mentioning it as the year progresses.
Read the rest...
What Do Liberals Believe?
If you're ready for a little humor, here's a look at the latest episode of "Klavan on the Culture". He asks the question "what do liberals believe," and comes up with some good ones. If you would like a small smile (or a grimace, if you happen to be a liberal), I recommend this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPQtjJ55SMA&feature=player_embedded
He makes some good observations, such as:
"Liberals believe that the American government is racist, imperialistic, militaristic, and corrupt... and should now take control of our economic system and health care."
"Liberals believe black people must be treated differently than white people, because they've suffered so terribly at the hands of those... who have treated them differently than white people."
"Liberals believe there are no inherent differences between men and women, and when you bring men and women together it constitutes diversity because... they're so different."
"Liberals believe that conservatives are fascist, racist, tea-bagging pigs, and that our nation's political discourse needs to be more civil."
And one last quote...
"Liberals are absolutely certain that corporations are inherently corrupt, a threat to our freedom, and a drain on our way of life... because they read this in the New York Times, on their iPods, at Starbucks."
Read the rest...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPQtjJ55SMA&feature=player_embedded
He makes some good observations, such as:
"Liberals believe that the American government is racist, imperialistic, militaristic, and corrupt... and should now take control of our economic system and health care."
"Liberals believe black people must be treated differently than white people, because they've suffered so terribly at the hands of those... who have treated them differently than white people."
"Liberals believe there are no inherent differences between men and women, and when you bring men and women together it constitutes diversity because... they're so different."
"Liberals believe that conservatives are fascist, racist, tea-bagging pigs, and that our nation's political discourse needs to be more civil."
And one last quote...
"Liberals are absolutely certain that corporations are inherently corrupt, a threat to our freedom, and a drain on our way of life... because they read this in the New York Times, on their iPods, at Starbucks."
Read the rest...
Poll: Most Think Government Threatens Our Rights
I found this interesting. According to a recent CNN poll, 56% of Americans think the federal government is a threat to our individual rights.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/26/citizens.rights.poll/
I find this very interesting.
But it shouldn't surprise anybody. Because of recent actions taken by our government, fewer and fewer people actually believe it cares about protecting our rights. We saw that last summer with the various and sundry protests... and that's a movement that has grown, not shrunk.
Read the rest...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/26/citizens.rights.poll/
Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.
The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: Only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of independents and nearly seven in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.
I find this very interesting.
But it shouldn't surprise anybody. Because of recent actions taken by our government, fewer and fewer people actually believe it cares about protecting our rights. We saw that last summer with the various and sundry protests... and that's a movement that has grown, not shrunk.
Read the rest...
PresBo's Approval Index Falls to 44%
According to Rasmussen, PresBo's approval index fell to -20... down from yesterday's -15. Overall, 43% approve while 55% disapprove.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Read the rest...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20. For President Obama, the Approval Index has been lower only once.
The ObamaCare Summit - My Thoughts
Okay, so Obama's "Bipartisan Summit" was held yesterday... did you watch it? Probably not, but if you did then I commend your dedication. But did you read any articles on the summit? They're hard to miss... everybody is writing with their take on what happened yesterday.
And I will do the same.
Yesterday was political theater, pure and simple. The Democrats did their dead-level best to portray Republicans as dastardly obstructionists, and Republicans did their best to portray the Democrats as power-hungry socialists. Overall, I think they both scored some points and lost others... pretty much a wash. Neither side won, so let's call it a tie.
But in this case, a tie works to help the Republicans... the Dems had to accomplish something that moved momentum to their side so they can shove their bill through, and that didn't happen. So the Republicans got the advantage there.
They behaved just right, you know? The Republicans were respectful enough... but not TOO respectful to fight. They were all reading from the same page, so to speak, so their message was uniform and consistent. Their first and strongest point throughout the entire summit was that the current bills are full of sweetheart deals and special deals, and that the starting point of any bipartisan negotiations HAS TO BE to scrap the existing bills and start over.
Democrats were adamant that this wouldn't happen... the bills would be pushed through with or without the Republicans. That alone should tell us how much political theater this was, as they didn't even pretend not to want to push their partisan bill through.
PresBo controlled the meeting, and he did his best to monopolize the time. He cut off the Republicans several times because of "time constraints," but somehow never managed to limit how long it took him to reply to them. So they had that advantage.
One thing I noticed repeatedly was that PresBo was trying to frame the debate... and failing. For example, when McCain called for starting over and emphasized that the American people don't want all the special deal-making that went into the House and Senate bills, PresBo first tried to make it look like McCain was doing something wrong. "We're not campaigning now, John." That sentence does nothing to dispute the points McCain made, but what the heck... it made a good sound-bite. Then he said, "We can talk about process or we can talk about content."
The problem is that process DRIVES the content. The secretive, highly partisan process used to construct the existing bills determined what those bills contained. Absolutely. So PresBo was disingenuous there.
One thing I was looking for at the end, the one thing I felt HAD to be there for the Democrats to claim a victory, was some kind of definitive framing of the debate. In order to win, PresBo had to strongly frame the day in such a way that Democrats won... and he didn't.
Another interesting development was PresBo saying things that the Congressional leadership disagreed with. For example, PresBo implied that he's willing to keep talking with Republicans for the next couple of months.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33512.html
Pretty clear, isn't it? He strongly implied a six-week timetable if it looked possible to resolve issues in a bipartisan way. Harry Reid almost immediately disagreed.
The bottom line, though, is that the day was little more than political posturing. Both sides tried to make their points and made sure to follow their talking points. And despite PresBo's statements about how we need to do more than follow talking points, he and his Congressional allies followed their own talking points pretty well.
So don't expect yesterday's summit to make much difference in the overall debate. Democrats wanted to make a clear case for pushing forward with reconciliation, and that didn't happen. So we're back to PresBo, Reid, and Pelosi trying to strong-arm as many Democrats as possible into following their reconciliation plan.
UPDATE: Here's an interesting article... in just a few paragraphs it summarizes the situation.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/25/dems-gop-set-televised-health-care-showdown/
Read the rest...
And I will do the same.
Yesterday was political theater, pure and simple. The Democrats did their dead-level best to portray Republicans as dastardly obstructionists, and Republicans did their best to portray the Democrats as power-hungry socialists. Overall, I think they both scored some points and lost others... pretty much a wash. Neither side won, so let's call it a tie.
But in this case, a tie works to help the Republicans... the Dems had to accomplish something that moved momentum to their side so they can shove their bill through, and that didn't happen. So the Republicans got the advantage there.
They behaved just right, you know? The Republicans were respectful enough... but not TOO respectful to fight. They were all reading from the same page, so to speak, so their message was uniform and consistent. Their first and strongest point throughout the entire summit was that the current bills are full of sweetheart deals and special deals, and that the starting point of any bipartisan negotiations HAS TO BE to scrap the existing bills and start over.
Democrats were adamant that this wouldn't happen... the bills would be pushed through with or without the Republicans. That alone should tell us how much political theater this was, as they didn't even pretend not to want to push their partisan bill through.
PresBo controlled the meeting, and he did his best to monopolize the time. He cut off the Republicans several times because of "time constraints," but somehow never managed to limit how long it took him to reply to them. So they had that advantage.
One thing I noticed repeatedly was that PresBo was trying to frame the debate... and failing. For example, when McCain called for starting over and emphasized that the American people don't want all the special deal-making that went into the House and Senate bills, PresBo first tried to make it look like McCain was doing something wrong. "We're not campaigning now, John." That sentence does nothing to dispute the points McCain made, but what the heck... it made a good sound-bite. Then he said, "We can talk about process or we can talk about content."
The problem is that process DRIVES the content. The secretive, highly partisan process used to construct the existing bills determined what those bills contained. Absolutely. So PresBo was disingenuous there.
One thing I was looking for at the end, the one thing I felt HAD to be there for the Democrats to claim a victory, was some kind of definitive framing of the debate. In order to win, PresBo had to strongly frame the day in such a way that Democrats won... and he didn't.
Another interesting development was PresBo saying things that the Congressional leadership disagreed with. For example, PresBo implied that he's willing to keep talking with Republicans for the next couple of months.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33512.html
“The question that I’m going to ask myself, and I’m going to ask of all of you, is, is there enough serious effort that in a month’s time, or in a few weeks time, or six weeks time, we could actually resolve something,” Obama said to close the seven-hour health care summit. “And if we can’t then I think we’ve got to go ahead and make some decisions.”
Pretty clear, isn't it? He strongly implied a six-week timetable if it looked possible to resolve issues in a bipartisan way. Harry Reid almost immediately disagreed.
But within minutes of Obama’s remark, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made clear that he didn’t envision negotiations with the Republicans that could stretch well into April. "That's the president's timeline, not mine," Reid told POLITICO.
The bottom line, though, is that the day was little more than political posturing. Both sides tried to make their points and made sure to follow their talking points. And despite PresBo's statements about how we need to do more than follow talking points, he and his Congressional allies followed their own talking points pretty well.
So don't expect yesterday's summit to make much difference in the overall debate. Democrats wanted to make a clear case for pushing forward with reconciliation, and that didn't happen. So we're back to PresBo, Reid, and Pelosi trying to strong-arm as many Democrats as possible into following their reconciliation plan.
UPDATE: Here's an interesting article... in just a few paragraphs it summarizes the situation.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/25/dems-gop-set-televised-health-care-showdown/
"It's not going to be possible with that kind of an approach to come together within the timeframe that he indicated if he insists...on starting with this 2,700-page bill, then tweaking it to adopt some of our ideas," said Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No 2. Republican in the Senate.
"I don't think there will be Republican support," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., flatly declared.
Democratic leaders, meanwhile, seemed eager to take the president up on his threat and abandon the prospect of a bipartisan bill.
Read the rest...
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Economics 101: Profits vs. Profit Margins
It's time for another economics lesson. Do you know the difference between a profit and a profit margin? Well, you will once you finish reading this.
A profit is essentially how much money was made. It is calculated by taking the total money earned and subtracting from it total expenses. That's how much money the business actually earned... the profit.
The profit margin is what percentage of the total income was profit. For example, if you earn a total of $100,000 and your profit on that is $10,000, then your profit margin is 10%. It is calculated by taking the profit amount and dividing it by total income.
There are two basic ways to increase your profit. The first way is to increase sales and the amount of income earned. The second way is to increase your profit margin, usually accomplished by increasing prices or decreasing costs.
Many businesses survive on razor-thin profit margins. For example, grocery stores and sporting goods stores survive on an incredibly small 0.2% profit margin... but their sales are high enough to turn that into a respectable amount of profit. Other industries enjoy a much higher profit margin, such as the publishing/periodical industry, which has a 21.8% profit margin.
Now let's apply this to a recent scandal with health insurance companies. PresBo and the Democrats have been raising a lot of commotion about a recent increase in some insurance companies premiums, and they talk about "record profits." Do you have any idea what the profit margin is for health insurance companies?
Would you believe 3.4%?
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html
The link above takes you to the actual data for the most recent quarter. As I write this, health insurance companies are ranked #86 by profit margin... which means that for every dollar of income they earn, they have expenses of 96.6 cents and make a profit of just 3.4 cents.
So let's assume your health insurance premium is $600 per month, for example. Then their profit is a paltry $20.40.
To be honest, this doesn't sound to me like the health insurance companies are earning an exorbitant profit, or that their profits are too high. Their profit margin is relatively low, and they make large profits by a high volume of sales.
As a matter of fact, the "individual mandate" will likely increase their profits by increasing their sales. I mean, if the government forces us to buy insurance, then their sales would HAVE to rise. So if you're upset at the health insurance companies "obscene" profits, then you should oppose ObamaCare... because it would just make insurance companies MORE profitable in the short term.
Read the rest...
A profit is essentially how much money was made. It is calculated by taking the total money earned and subtracting from it total expenses. That's how much money the business actually earned... the profit.
The profit margin is what percentage of the total income was profit. For example, if you earn a total of $100,000 and your profit on that is $10,000, then your profit margin is 10%. It is calculated by taking the profit amount and dividing it by total income.
There are two basic ways to increase your profit. The first way is to increase sales and the amount of income earned. The second way is to increase your profit margin, usually accomplished by increasing prices or decreasing costs.
Many businesses survive on razor-thin profit margins. For example, grocery stores and sporting goods stores survive on an incredibly small 0.2% profit margin... but their sales are high enough to turn that into a respectable amount of profit. Other industries enjoy a much higher profit margin, such as the publishing/periodical industry, which has a 21.8% profit margin.
Now let's apply this to a recent scandal with health insurance companies. PresBo and the Democrats have been raising a lot of commotion about a recent increase in some insurance companies premiums, and they talk about "record profits." Do you have any idea what the profit margin is for health insurance companies?
Would you believe 3.4%?
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html
The link above takes you to the actual data for the most recent quarter. As I write this, health insurance companies are ranked #86 by profit margin... which means that for every dollar of income they earn, they have expenses of 96.6 cents and make a profit of just 3.4 cents.
So let's assume your health insurance premium is $600 per month, for example. Then their profit is a paltry $20.40.
To be honest, this doesn't sound to me like the health insurance companies are earning an exorbitant profit, or that their profits are too high. Their profit margin is relatively low, and they make large profits by a high volume of sales.
As a matter of fact, the "individual mandate" will likely increase their profits by increasing their sales. I mean, if the government forces us to buy insurance, then their sales would HAVE to rise. So if you're upset at the health insurance companies "obscene" profits, then you should oppose ObamaCare... because it would just make insurance companies MORE profitable in the short term.
Read the rest...
Consumer Confidence Falls Again
Experts had predicted that consumer confidence would fall slightly from 55.9 to 55.0 in February, but instead it plummeted to a 10-month low of 46. And the present condition index dropped to a 27-year low of 19.4.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=agmQt8l9z.us
Furthermore, people seem to think it's getting harder to find a job.
So that seems to be the mood of the country, pessimistic and expecting things to get worse.
Read the rest...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=agmQt8l9z.us
Confidence among U.S. consumers fell in February to the lowest level in 10 months, a sign that concern about job prospects may hold back the spending needed to sustain the recovery.
“Consumer spending is going to disappoint throughout most of the year,” said Steven Ricchiuto, chief economist at Mizuho Securities USA Inc. in New York. The economy “may not be out of the woods.”
The Conference Board’s measure of present conditions decreased to 19.4, the lowest since February 1983, from 25.2.
Furthermore, people seem to think it's getting harder to find a job.
The share of consumers who said jobs are plentiful fell to 3.6 percent from 4.4 percent, according to the Conference Board. The proportion of people who said jobs are hard to get increased to 47.7 percent from 46.5 percent.
“The vicissitudes of the political situation in Washington cannot be helping,” said Brian Bethune, chief financial economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts. “There has been a lot of sizzle on job stimulus proposals but no meat is coming out of the sausage factory. Now the focus seems to be moving back to the health-care reform issue.”
The proportion of people who expect their incomes to increase over the next six months declined to 9.5 percent from 11 percent. The share expecting more jobs in the next six months fell to 13.4 percent from 15.8 percent.
So that seems to be the mood of the country, pessimistic and expecting things to get worse.
The unemployment rate is expected to average 9.8 percent this year, according to the median forecast of a Bloomberg survey taken early this month.
An increase in initial jobless claims so far this year signals the labor market isn’t improving, said Ricchiuto. Claims rose to 473,000 in the week ended Feb. 13, compared with 432,000 at the end of 2009, the lowest since July 2008.
Read the rest...
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll
For those who don't know, CPAC is the "Conservative Political Action Conference" and is the largest gathering of conservatives annually. They hold periodic straw polls to see what the conservative membership is thinking, and their latest straw poll was this past weekend on Feb 19. Would you like to know who won?
Ron Paul. Why? Because of his stances on fiscal issues.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33287.html
When asked about the victory, Dr. Paul said that it was significant, he hasn't decided about a 2012 run for President, and the GOP should pay more attention to their fiscally conservative base.
I think another run would be a good thing, though I do have some concerns. Dr. Paul isn't the youngest man in the nation. He's in his mid-70's, I believe, which means health concerns might arise at some point.
I believe that Dr. Paul would make an excellent President, and would do his best to move this country in the fiscal direction that it must go. But whether or not he decides to run, I think he should do what is best for him.
Best of luck to you, Dr. Paul.
Read the rest...
Ron Paul. Why? Because of his stances on fiscal issues.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33287.html
Paul captured 31 percent of the vote in the annual straw poll — long viewed as a gauge of conservative sentiment — besting three-year winner and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who finished with 22 percent. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin finished third with 7 percent, followed by Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty at 6 percent and Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who received 5 percent.
When asked about the victory, Dr. Paul said that it was significant, he hasn't decided about a 2012 run for President, and the GOP should pay more attention to their fiscally conservative base.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Monday that his win in the Conservative Political Action Conference’s straw poll was “significant” but that he is still undecided on another run for president.
“It’s not the conventional wisdom of the old Republican Party conservatism,” he said of the sentiment among his supporters. “I think something new is coming along.”
Paul said that he is “undecided” on another run for president in 2012, but warned GOP leaders to pay more attention to those in the party who share his views.
“The Republican Party and other leaders in this country need to wake up and find out exactly why the young people are sick and tired of what is being dumped on them politically and economically,” he said.
I think another run would be a good thing, though I do have some concerns. Dr. Paul isn't the youngest man in the nation. He's in his mid-70's, I believe, which means health concerns might arise at some point.
I believe that Dr. Paul would make an excellent President, and would do his best to move this country in the fiscal direction that it must go. But whether or not he decides to run, I think he should do what is best for him.
Best of luck to you, Dr. Paul.
Read the rest...
ObamaCare: Same Old Plan, Even Some Dems Oppose
The President has unveiled the "compromise" health care bill that he wants to ram through with reconciliation, if the Republicans don't respond to his "bipartisan summit" by suddenly becoming liberals and supporting his liberal bill. Unsurprisingly, it's the same old bill we've been looking at, and the only thing bipartisan about it is the opposition to it: even some Democrats oppose it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33322.html
The underlying assumption of this bill is still the same, assuming that massive government intervention and regulation is the best (if not only) way to go. Here's hoping that the Republicans remain united against it, because it's still a very bad bill.
So it's the same old bill... except PresBo managed to make it even more expensive than the Senate OR House bills. Clocking in at $950 billion, it hardly demonstrates fiscal restraint.
Read the rest...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33322.html
The White House opened its last-ditch push for health reform Monday by releasing a $950 billion plan that signaled a new phase of hands-on presidential involvement.
But by day’s end, President Barack Obama was staring down all the same old problems.
Republicans called it a retread of the same bills Americans have panned, even though it included some GOP ideas. “Déjà vu all over again,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).
Democrats and labor unions didn’t rush to embrace it, either, with some disappointed by the absence of a public insurance option. Congressional Democratic aides also complained of being left in the dark by the White House, asking for a preview of the bill Friday, only to be denied by White House aides, according to multiple sources.
And Obama’s plan did nothing to answer the central question facing Democrats: how to get a bill through the Senate — now one vote shy of a filibuster-proof majority — in one of the most toxic environments for incumbents in recent memory. Even with the first presidential plan on the table, there was no guarantee Democrats could pull off health reform this year.
The underlying assumption of this bill is still the same, assuming that massive government intervention and regulation is the best (if not only) way to go. Here's hoping that the Republicans remain united against it, because it's still a very bad bill.
So it's the same old bill... except PresBo managed to make it even more expensive than the Senate OR House bills. Clocking in at $950 billion, it hardly demonstrates fiscal restraint.
Read the rest...
Monday, February 22, 2010
Congressman Offers Health Care Reform Plan
Representative Paul Ryan (R) has some insights on our current problems and outlines a "roadmap" to reform. I do not agree with everything he says in this plan, but it is certainly worth looking at, so I offer it to you.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233915
As for the rest, his actual plan, I will let you read all the details. You may not agree with all he proposes, as I do not, but he does have some good ideas. Especially considering that his plan supposedly rejects big-government solutions.
So read it and let me know what you think.
Read the rest...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233915
Imagine your family's finances if you spent and borrowed like Washington: you'd owe $60 in credit-card loans for every $100 of income. Every month you'd pay back a little but borrow even more. In 10 years, you'd owe $87 for every $100 you made. At some point you'd hand off the debt to your kids. If they worked until 2035, they'd owe more than $180 for every $100 they earned. In 2050, your grandkids would owe more than $320. By 2080 they'd owe seven times their earnings. Of course, lenders would cut them off well before then, and your family would be ruined. But this is the path your government is on right now.
Today, our country faces a fiscal meltdown—and Washington's continued cowardice is a big part of the problem. The social-insurance strategies of the 20th century—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—are driving our federal government and economy to collapse. It's long been obvious that we're ill prepared for the retirement of the baby boomers. Now, the recession and Washington's recent spending spree have accelerated the day of reckoning.
I've put forward a specific solution to meet this challenge, a plan the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says can achieve its goals of paying off government debt in the long run—while securing the social safety net and making possible future economic growth. I call it "A Roadmap for America's Future." If followed, this is what will happen:
As for the rest, his actual plan, I will let you read all the details. You may not agree with all he proposes, as I do not, but he does have some good ideas. Especially considering that his plan supposedly rejects big-government solutions.
One frequent charge against these reforms is, however, correct: the Roadmap does shift power to individuals at the expense of government control. It rejects the merits and sustainability of a cradle-to-grave welfare state, which drains individuals of their self-reliance. The plan unapologetically applies our nation's founding principles—individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise—to the challenges of today. And the Roadmap does this in a way that honors our historic commitment to strengthening the social safety net for those who need it most.
So read it and let me know what you think.
Read the rest...
ObamaCare: A Cautionary Tale
It's time to look again at states who have enacted health care "reforms" similar to those in the Senate ObamaCare bill. Shouldn't we learn from the experiences of others? That seems smart to me...
So let's go back two decades and look at New York. At that time, they enacted two key provisions of ObamaCare: Insurance companies could not refuse coverage because of pre-existing conditions (guaranteed issue provision) and they could not vary premiums based upon the age or health of the insured (pure community rating provision). Three years later they enacted another law that required all HMO's to offer a comprehensive, standardized package of benefits.
These are the kinds of "compassionate" provisions that ObamaCare is filled with, right? So, what has happened in New York?
Of course, PresBo wants to offset this obvious liability with the "individual mandate"... a provision that is most likely unconstitutional in nature.
This article is making the point that PresBo's "individual mandate" is necessary to control costs, but to do so it makes the case of all those who oppose ObamaCare. The core provisions of ObamaCare would drive up insurance costs, and the "subsidies" that the Democrats are offering with the mandate would increase spending and our national debt.
It's a bad deal, people. Shouldn't we learn from the mistakes of others? These kinds of laws do NOT make things better... they just create a different kind of "worst."
Read the rest...
So let's go back two decades and look at New York. At that time, they enacted two key provisions of ObamaCare: Insurance companies could not refuse coverage because of pre-existing conditions (guaranteed issue provision) and they could not vary premiums based upon the age or health of the insured (pure community rating provision). Three years later they enacted another law that required all HMO's to offer a comprehensive, standardized package of benefits.
These are the kinds of "compassionate" provisions that ObamaCare is filled with, right? So, what has happened in New York?
The law allowed consumers to buy insurance after they became sick with only a relatively short waiting period. They could also drop it when they no longer needed it.
The New York insurance market did not collapse, as some insurers had warned. But in the ensuing years, more older and sicker New Yorkers bought individual health plans. And premiums shot upward.
Since 2001, the average premiums for a health plan on the individual market in New York has nearly tripled, according to the state Insurance Department. In some counties, it is impossible to buy an individual plan for less than $12,000 a year.
Although New York has higher medical costs than many states, its premiums still outpace other high-cost states.
An informal survey by America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry group, showed that average premiums in New York last year were more than twice those in California and Florida, two other high-cost states.
Of course, PresBo wants to offset this obvious liability with the "individual mandate"... a provision that is most likely unconstitutional in nature.
But with premiums continuing to climb, the market regulations are increasingly becoming an empty promise, said Scherzer, the consumer attorney. "You have to be incredibly sick to make it worthwhile," he said.
Obama and congressional Democrats tried to head off the problem confronting New York by including a requirement in their healthcare legislation that nearly all Americans buy insurance.
This so-called insurance mandate alone would not guarantee lower premiums, many experts concede. Insurance rates in Massachusetts, which included a mandate in its landmark insurance overhaul in 2006, remain relatively high.
This article is making the point that PresBo's "individual mandate" is necessary to control costs, but to do so it makes the case of all those who oppose ObamaCare. The core provisions of ObamaCare would drive up insurance costs, and the "subsidies" that the Democrats are offering with the mandate would increase spending and our national debt.
It's a bad deal, people. Shouldn't we learn from the mistakes of others? These kinds of laws do NOT make things better... they just create a different kind of "worst."
Read the rest...
Analysis: Obama's "Political Theater" Summit
We're getting close to Obama's latest theatrical excursion, his "summit" on health care. And it's looking like he has placed his "partisan hypocrite" hat firmly on his head.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33251.html
And that's the core of PresBo's quest for partisan approval. He wants this "summit" so that he and the Democrats can ridicule and dismiss GOP proposals and then say, "since you don't have any better suggestions to offer, we'll just shove our liberal bill through.
But in this he'll have to rein in his own party, who want to add things to the reconciliation bill. For example, Reid said that if reconciliation is used then he wants to add a "public option" back into it. And even without that kind of meddling, not even all DEMOCRATS support using reconciliation to pass such a sweeping package.
So that's the picture. PresBo's "compromise bill" is supposed to be posted sometime today, so we'll take a look at it when we can.
Read the rest...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33251.html
He doesn’t want political theater, he insists, but a serious effort to forge bipartisan consensus.
And yet Obama is unveiling a health care bill just days before the six-hour summit that wouldn’t require a single GOP vote, with plans to short-circuit the Senate rules and push it through without Republicans if necessary.
The Democrats’ push to reform the health care system has always moved on two tracks: the public track — what the president and others say in public — and the private one — what they negotiate behind closed doors.
But those two efforts seem at odds this week like never before, as Obama makes a final public pitch for bipartisan cooperation — with live TV coverage, no less — at the very moment he seems most prepared to abandon it completely. He’s trying to engage Republicans to make his case for reform but is laying the groundwork to go around them if they won’t sign on.
And that's the core of PresBo's quest for partisan approval. He wants this "summit" so that he and the Democrats can ridicule and dismiss GOP proposals and then say, "since you don't have any better suggestions to offer, we'll just shove our liberal bill through.
But in this he'll have to rein in his own party, who want to add things to the reconciliation bill. For example, Reid said that if reconciliation is used then he wants to add a "public option" back into it. And even without that kind of meddling, not even all DEMOCRATS support using reconciliation to pass such a sweeping package.
An aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) let reporters know last week that his boss wants to add a public option to the final bill if Democrats choose to pursue a once-arcane procedural maneuver called reconciliation, in which the ruling party only needs a simple 51-vote majority for passage.
But even Democratic leaders are queasy about whether they can muster the votes to pass it in the post-Massachusetts environment. Senate moderates, in particular, have rebelled against the idea of using reconciliation to pass reform.
So that's the picture. PresBo's "compromise bill" is supposed to be posted sometime today, so we'll take a look at it when we can.
Read the rest...
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Why Stocks And Worries Are Rising
I stumbled upon this article yesterday, and found it quite enlightening.
Basically, the author is making the point that the stock market is rising because we have a positive bubble that exists within a larger negative bubble. In other words, stocks will do well for a while, then that period will end and we'll see stocks dropping again.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/why-stocks-worries-are-both-rising.aspx
It's a very educational article, and I urge you to read the entire piece.
Read the rest...
Basically, the author is making the point that the stock market is rising because we have a positive bubble that exists within a larger negative bubble. In other words, stocks will do well for a while, then that period will end and we'll see stocks dropping again.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/why-stocks-worries-are-both-rising.aspx
Strong market rallies -- even three- to four-year cyclical bull markets -- can take place inside a longer bear market trend. And despite a bull rally, the long-term trend can still point very strongly down.
I think that's exactly where we are now: in the midst of a strong cyclical bull rally that's taking place in a long-term bear market downtrend that began in March 2000 and could have five to 10 more years to run.
But I think understanding that we're in a cyclical bull inside a secular bear market is the best way to explain why this stock market feels the way it does, why so many investors still doubt this rally even after a 70% gain and why it has been so hard to go along for the ride.
And that feeling you have that it's all going to end badly? It's perfectly normal and likely as not to be correct in the longer term, if this is still a secular bear market.
It's a very educational article, and I urge you to read the entire piece.
Read the rest...
It's Okay To Carry Guns In National Parks
Do you own a handgun? Do you also have a legally issued permit allowing you to carry a concealed weapon in your state? If so, don't bother trying to carry that weapon in a National park... it's illegal. For a while, anyway, because that's about to change.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/18/AR2010021805124.html
Personally, I find this a refreshing change. Federal law currently prohibits us normal citizens from carrying a concealed weapon, even if we have the proper license, into most Federal buildings. This situation is more than a joke, if you ask me. The Constitution of the United States protects our right to own and carry guns... but not if we're anywhere near our Federal Government? What kind of a right is it if it can be ignored at will by the very government that is supposed to PROTECT that right for us?
Yeah... not much of one. If we actually have a right to own and carry a firearm, then exceptions should be FEW, not comprehensive. So this move with the parks is a good first-step in the right direction. Maybe if we continue pushing, more and more government-controlled areas in this country will allow us to exercise our RIGHTS.
So this is a good move. This change occurred under George Bush, so this goes in his credit column. PresBo gets credit for not fighting it, though.
This is a victory for those in this country who believe that citizens have rights that our government can't ignore.
Read the rest...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/18/AR2010021805124.html
The federal government will lift long-standing restrictions on guns in national parks Monday, meaning that visitors with proper permits could pack heat along with camping and picnic gear to most of the 392 parks. The move concerns current and former employees of the National Park Service who are convinced that the move will damage the spirit of the nation's park system.
The Park Service has spent months preparing for the new law, holding conference calls in recent days with park supervisors to review the changes and ensure they prepare signage and talking points for visitors, spokesman David Barna said.
Personally, I find this a refreshing change. Federal law currently prohibits us normal citizens from carrying a concealed weapon, even if we have the proper license, into most Federal buildings. This situation is more than a joke, if you ask me. The Constitution of the United States protects our right to own and carry guns... but not if we're anywhere near our Federal Government? What kind of a right is it if it can be ignored at will by the very government that is supposed to PROTECT that right for us?
Yeah... not much of one. If we actually have a right to own and carry a firearm, then exceptions should be FEW, not comprehensive. So this move with the parks is a good first-step in the right direction. Maybe if we continue pushing, more and more government-controlled areas in this country will allow us to exercise our RIGHTS.
So this is a good move. This change occurred under George Bush, so this goes in his credit column. PresBo gets credit for not fighting it, though.
The Bush administration had lifted the ban on concealed weapons in its final months, after pressure from gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association. But a federal judge blocked the move last year. The Obama administration declined to appeal the ruling, and Congress passed the law. President Obama signed the measure without comment as part of a credit card reform package.
This is a victory for those in this country who believe that citizens have rights that our government can't ignore.
Read the rest...
Friday, February 19, 2010
Sestak: Offered Federal Position To Not Oppose Specter
US Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA) has decided to run against erstwhile Republican Arlen Specter for the Democrat nomination for Senate later this year. It's a good decision, because Sestak stands a good chance of winning the seat... Arlen Specter is about as popular with Pennsylvania Democrats as Parker Griffith is with Alabama Republicans.
So it looks like a good move for Sestak. However, PresBo and the majority leadership have eagerly embraced Specter... it would be an embarrassment for them if Specter couldn't even win the Dem primary.
Sestak is now saying that he was approached by the White House and offered a federal position if he would bow out of the Senate race and let Specter have it.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20100219_Sestak_says_federal_job_was_offered_to_quit_race.html
Of course, the White House denies this ever happened.
Hmmm... are they angry because Sestak lied or angry because he talked about it?
Is this true or false? Only Sestak and those White House personnel involved know for sure. But from what we've seen in the past year of PresBo's political style, such an offer is believable. Despicable, but believable.
If it IS true, and that's a big if, it shows a deep disregard for the welfare of the nation... he'd rather see his political party get ahead than the country.
Read the rest...
So it looks like a good move for Sestak. However, PresBo and the majority leadership have eagerly embraced Specter... it would be an embarrassment for them if Specter couldn't even win the Dem primary.
Sestak is now saying that he was approached by the White House and offered a federal position if he would bow out of the Senate race and let Specter have it.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20100219_Sestak_says_federal_job_was_offered_to_quit_race.html
The disclosure came during an afternoon taping of Larry Kane: Voice of Reason, a Sunday news-analysis show on the Comcast Network. Sestak would not elaborate on the circumstances and seemed chagrined after blurting out "yes" to veteran news anchor Kane's direct question.
"Was it secretary of the Navy?" Kane asked.
"No comment," Sestak said.
"Was it [the job] high-ranking?" Kane asked. Sestak said yes, but added that he would "never leave" the Senate race for a deal.
Of course, the White House denies this ever happened.
A White House spokesman this morning strongly denied Sestak had been offered yesterday. Before the spokesman issued the denial a senior Pennsylvania Democrat yesterday said Whitye House officials there were angered by Sestak's account.
Hmmm... are they angry because Sestak lied or angry because he talked about it?
"Clearly, the offers are made," said Ross Baker, a Rutgers University political science professor who specializes in Congress. "When a White House wants to preempt a challenge, they'll dangle something. But it is almost never uttered."
In addition, Baker said, conversations in such cases are nuanced, and savvy operators know not to use explicit quid pro quo language.
He said he could not, off hand, think of another instance in which a candidate has divulged an approach from White House officials.
Is this true or false? Only Sestak and those White House personnel involved know for sure. But from what we've seen in the past year of PresBo's political style, such an offer is believable. Despicable, but believable.
If it IS true, and that's a big if, it shows a deep disregard for the welfare of the nation... he'd rather see his political party get ahead than the country.
Read the rest...
Obama Laying Groundwork For Middle-Class Tax Hikes
One of PresBo's "promises" to us is that he will not raise taxes on anybody earning less than $250,000 per year. That's his absolute promise to us, even though he's already broken it. At least he's TRIED to explain how he didn't really do that. Now he doesn't care, and is laying the groundwork for tax increases on everybody, including the middle class.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/18/white-house-begins-spade-work-to-avoid-blame-for-tax-increases/
So tax increases for the middle-class are on the table, but if he signs them into law it isn't his fault. That's a position only an academic fence-straddler could love. And it's a position that only a self-delusional fool would think we believe for a moment.
But be that as it may, are tax increases likely to come from this panel that he created by Executive Order? Yes, they're far more likely than spending cuts.
So yes, the panel is likely to recommend tax increases on the middle-class, and yes, PresBo would probably sign them into law. But it won't be his fault, we're told... I guess he forgot that little four-letter word: VETO!
The only up-side is that the recommendations on the panel aren't binding, and Congress can ignore them completely.
Look, the problem we have with our budget and our national debt was caused by Congress spending more money than the government saw in tax revenues. PresBo and the Democrats want to fix that problem by keeping our spending where it is, mostly, and increasing taxes to pay for it. But elected officials have little fiscal discipline in normal times. A politician friend of mine once told me "We can ALWAYS spend more money!" And that's what will happen... taxes will go up and spending will continue to rise... and at that point we're sunk.
In order to balance this thing out, start paying down our national debt, and charting a sustainable course into the future, we must begin to curtail spending. And since a very large portion of federal spending goes to entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, that means we have to start reigning in those costs. Raising taxes will just get us into more trouble UNLESS we get spending under control FIRST.
This budget reduction panel will consist of six Congressional Democrats, six Congressional Republicans, and four Presidential appointees. And since those appointees will be, in all likelihood, Democrats (and liberal ones, too), that means the tax-raisers will be in control of the panel. And that's a bad thing.
But when the tax increases on the middle-class start to be pushed, just remember who broke his promise not to let that happen.
Read the rest...
http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/18/white-house-begins-spade-work-to-avoid-blame-for-tax-increases/
President Obama on Thursday indicated that tax increases on people who make less than $250,000 a year will be on the table when a deficit commission makes its recommendations later this year on how to resolve the nation’s fiscal imbalances.
“Everything’s on the table. That’s how this thing is going to work,” Obama said Thursday, moments after signing an executive order creating the 18-member commission.
But the White House has already begun to lay the groundwork for their argument that such a recommendation by the panel should not be blamed on the president, who vowed during his campaign not to raise taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000.
“The president will not sit on the commission and the options they present will not necessarily reflect administration policy,” a White House official told The Daily Caller.
So tax increases for the middle-class are on the table, but if he signs them into law it isn't his fault. That's a position only an academic fence-straddler could love. And it's a position that only a self-delusional fool would think we believe for a moment.
But be that as it may, are tax increases likely to come from this panel that he created by Executive Order? Yes, they're far more likely than spending cuts.
Many economic experts see no alternative to raising taxes across the board in order to reduce the federal deficit, which is projected to hit $1.6 trillion this year.
Conservatives, however, see the problem mostly as a spending problem, and are skeptical of the president’s commission because they believe it will inevitably lead to higher taxes.
Rep. Tom Price, Georgia Republican and head of the Republican Study Committee, called the panel “a political solution to a glaring math problem.”
“Since the president has unfairly given Democrats and liberals an over representation on the commission, the odds are high that its recommendations will be heavy on tax increases and light on spending reductions,” Price said.
So yes, the panel is likely to recommend tax increases on the middle-class, and yes, PresBo would probably sign them into law. But it won't be his fault, we're told... I guess he forgot that little four-letter word: VETO!
The only up-side is that the recommendations on the panel aren't binding, and Congress can ignore them completely.
Look, the problem we have with our budget and our national debt was caused by Congress spending more money than the government saw in tax revenues. PresBo and the Democrats want to fix that problem by keeping our spending where it is, mostly, and increasing taxes to pay for it. But elected officials have little fiscal discipline in normal times. A politician friend of mine once told me "We can ALWAYS spend more money!" And that's what will happen... taxes will go up and spending will continue to rise... and at that point we're sunk.
In order to balance this thing out, start paying down our national debt, and charting a sustainable course into the future, we must begin to curtail spending. And since a very large portion of federal spending goes to entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, that means we have to start reigning in those costs. Raising taxes will just get us into more trouble UNLESS we get spending under control FIRST.
This budget reduction panel will consist of six Congressional Democrats, six Congressional Republicans, and four Presidential appointees. And since those appointees will be, in all likelihood, Democrats (and liberal ones, too), that means the tax-raisers will be in control of the panel. And that's a bad thing.
But when the tax increases on the middle-class start to be pushed, just remember who broke his promise not to let that happen.
Read the rest...
Dems Prepare Final ObamaCare Bill Without Republicans
Democrats apparently are reaching final agreement on what the ObamaCare compromise should look like... without Republican participation. The plan is to push that compromise bill through using budget reconciliation without any Republican support.
http://realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Feb/18/white_house__dems_near_accord_on_health_care_bill.html
They claim they will have the bill posted by Monday... three days before the scheduled summit. But Republicans are asking a very good question... if the Democrats have already decided to push their liberal bill through using reconciliation, then why bother having a summit?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/81957-house-gop-if-dems-are-finishing-healthcare-bill-why-have-a-summit
This is what I've been saying since I heard about the "bipartisan summit"... the Democrats want to hurt Republicans and help get their liberal bill passed. Attending the summit can't help Republicans at all.
So send a representative to make clear that a bipartisan agreement MUST begin with the existing bills being scrapped. Starting over is the ONLY way bipartisanship can even be seriously attempted.
The fact that the Democrats are continuing work on their liberal bill and intend to push it through using reconciliation indicates they never had any intention of really engaging in bipartisan negotiations.
Political theatre... as I've said all along.
Read the rest...
http://realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Feb/18/white_house__dems_near_accord_on_health_care_bill.html
The White House and congressional leaders are preparing a detailed health care proposal designed to win passage without Republican support if GOP lawmakers fail to embrace bipartisan compromises at President Barack Obama's summit next week.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Thursday that Obama plans to have a health care proposal that "will take some of the best ideas and put them into a framework" ahead of the Feb. 25 summit.
They claim they will have the bill posted by Monday... three days before the scheduled summit. But Republicans are asking a very good question... if the Democrats have already decided to push their liberal bill through using reconciliation, then why bother having a summit?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/81957-house-gop-if-dems-are-finishing-healthcare-bill-why-have-a-summit
"We’re one week away from the ‘bipartisan’ White House health care summit, and Washington Democrats are scrambling to salvage their massive — and quite partisan — government takeover of health care," the statement says. "But for all that, Democrats may not even have a backroom deal ready by the summit despite promises to post it online in advance.
"We don’t need a six-hour infomercial for the latest Democratic backroom deal. We need to start over on real health care reforms to lower costs. That’s what the American people want, and what they deserve."
After Obama announced his plan for the summit, GOP leaders seemed to endorse the idea but have since questioned the White House's motives amid indications that House and Senate Democrats continue to work with the White House on merging the bills that passed both chambers and that the White House is working on its own set of proposals based on that legislation. So far, the only Republican to publicly announce that he'll show up for the summit has been Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee ranking member Mike Enzi (Wyo.).
This is what I've been saying since I heard about the "bipartisan summit"... the Democrats want to hurt Republicans and help get their liberal bill passed. Attending the summit can't help Republicans at all.
So send a representative to make clear that a bipartisan agreement MUST begin with the existing bills being scrapped. Starting over is the ONLY way bipartisanship can even be seriously attempted.
The fact that the Democrats are continuing work on their liberal bill and intend to push it through using reconciliation indicates they never had any intention of really engaging in bipartisan negotiations.
Political theatre... as I've said all along.
Read the rest...
Fed Raises Discount Rate
One of the tactics the Fed has been using to combat the bad economy is to keep interest rates at artificially low rates. Yesterday they announced that they were increasing one rate from 0.5% to 0.75%... a 50% increase.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/35465481
Yes, they went to great lengths to assure us of how little this will affect our lives. However, some analysts were shocked and expect a sell-off in the stock market as it opens today.
You can read the Fed's statement here:
http://blogs.wsj.com/dispatch/2010/02/18/federal-reserve-statement/
Though this move doesn't mean they're ready to raise the rates on all of us, it does mean they're testing the waters for such a move.
The Feds cannot keep interest rates low forever, and with all the money they printed over the last year, currency inflation could hit with a vengeance... possibly sometime next year.
And though the Fed was hoping the effect would be muted, it wasn't.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703315004575073810416822660.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
So keep your eye on this over the next few months.
Read the rest...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/35465481
The Federal Reserve said on Thursday it raised the interest rate it charges banks for emergency loans but insisted that its first rate move since December 2008 would not raise borrowing costs for consumers or companies.
The Fed cast its decision to raise the discount rate to 0.75 percent from 0.5 percent as a response to improved financial market conditions that warrant less of a helping hand from the U.S. central bank.
It went to pains to draw the distinction between the discount rate and its target for overnight interbank rates, its main monetary policy tool, which remains unchanged near zero percent as a fragile U.S. economic recovery struggles to gain traction.
Yes, they went to great lengths to assure us of how little this will affect our lives. However, some analysts were shocked and expect a sell-off in the stock market as it opens today.
Market watchers were shocked by the announcement, which came after markets closed Thursday.
“I'm shocked. Completely shocked,” Todd Schoenberger, managing director of LandColt Trading said of the Fed’s move to raise the discount rate. “It makes me wonder if the CPI number coming out tomorrow is going to be just absolutely horrible—maybe they got wind of something,” he said.
Schoenberger expects the Fed to raise the federal-funds rate, the rate banks charge each other, at its next meeting March 17-18. He, like many traders, didn't expect the Fed to make a move until the second half of this year.
The analyst expects stocks to pull back from the Dow Jones Industrial Average's recent three-day winning streak as a result of the Fed move.
"Expect a dramatic selloff at the open tomorrow morning," Schoenberger told CNBC.
You can read the Fed's statement here:
http://blogs.wsj.com/dispatch/2010/02/18/federal-reserve-statement/
Though this move doesn't mean they're ready to raise the rates on all of us, it does mean they're testing the waters for such a move.
The increase in the discount rate “does not mean that the Fed is ready to hike [the fed-funds rate] or has a set time for such a move. But it does mean that the Fed is preparing the way,” said Robert Brusca, chief economist at FAO Economics. “This is very much a move to prepare markets and to test markets to see if they are ready to absorb a rate increase by putting the Fed’s lending vehicles back in a normal configuration,” he said.
The Feds cannot keep interest rates low forever, and with all the money they printed over the last year, currency inflation could hit with a vengeance... possibly sometime next year.
And though the Fed was hoping the effect would be muted, it wasn't.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703315004575073810416822660.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
The Federal Reserve raised an interest rate it charges banks for emergency loans, and emphasized that a broader tightening of credit for consumers and businesses is still at least several months away. But the late-afternoon increase in the discount rate didn't have the muted impact Fed officials hoped for.
Stock futures and bond prices fell, and the dollar rose against the euro.
"The Fed can talk all day about how the discount rate hike is technical and not a policy move, but the market sees it as a shot across the bow," Christopher Rupkey, an economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, said in a note to clients.
So keep your eye on this over the next few months.
Read the rest...
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Breaking: Plane Crashes Into Texas IRS Building
A plane crashed into the Echelon Building in Austin, Texas, the home of the Austin IRS offices. The crash appears to have been the intentional act of a Texas man who had a long-standing feud with the IRS. In a rambling post on a web page that has since been removed by the ISP at the request of the FBI, the suspect said that "violence was the only way."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35460268/ns/us_news-life
At least two people died in the crash, as did the pilot of the airplane.
If you would like to read the entire statement as posted by the suspected pilot, you may do so here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35461747/ns/us_news-life/
To read the rest, click here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35461747/ns/us_news-life/
At this moment in time, it appears as if this was a deliberate act by someone who has become disgusted by politics in general and taxes in specific... though it is still early and that understanding may change over time. The frustration of the alleged killer may be understandable, but his actions are not. There is no justification for the wanton murder of innocent individuals, no matter the personal or religious motivation that may be behind the act.
But as with the Ft. Hood shooting, I would caution everybody to wait until all the facts are in before drawing final conclusions. News reports of incidents like these are LEAST accurate early in the process. Wait until an investigation has occurred and facts have been disclosed before drawing any conclusions.
My prayers are with those injured in the crash and with the families of those who were killed.
UPDATE: Here is an NBC news piece on this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=35468099?
UPDATE: Here's another article on the crash.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35469748/ns/us_news-life
Read the rest...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35460268/ns/us_news-life
"If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, 'Why did this have to happen?' The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time."
So began a lengthy, rambling anti-government Web message believed posted by a Texas man suspected of crashing his small plane into an office building housing IRS employees.
The man, identified by federal law enforcement officials as Joseph Stack, 53, was a software engineer who had a long-running grudge with the Internal Revenue Service, whom he referred to in the screed as "thugs and plunderers."
At least two people died in the crash, as did the pilot of the airplane.
At an afternoon news conference, Austin police Chief Art Acevedo said the crash "appears to be an intentional act."
"It would appear to be by a sole individual, and it appears this individual was targeting federal offices inside that building," Acevedo said.
Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, said in a statement that the crash was "a cowardly act of domestic terrorism." The police chief, however, said he preferred to describe it as "a criminal act by a lone individual."
The FBI was taking over the investigation.
If you would like to read the entire statement as posted by the suspected pilot, you may do so here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35461747/ns/us_news-life/
If you're reading this, you're no doubt asking yourself, "Why did this have to happen?" The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn't enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I'm not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.
We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was "no taxation without representation". I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a "crackpot", traitor and worse.
While very few working people would say they haven't had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.
To read the rest, click here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35461747/ns/us_news-life/
At this moment in time, it appears as if this was a deliberate act by someone who has become disgusted by politics in general and taxes in specific... though it is still early and that understanding may change over time. The frustration of the alleged killer may be understandable, but his actions are not. There is no justification for the wanton murder of innocent individuals, no matter the personal or religious motivation that may be behind the act.
But as with the Ft. Hood shooting, I would caution everybody to wait until all the facts are in before drawing final conclusions. News reports of incidents like these are LEAST accurate early in the process. Wait until an investigation has occurred and facts have been disclosed before drawing any conclusions.
My prayers are with those injured in the crash and with the families of those who were killed.
UPDATE: Here is an NBC news piece on this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=35468099?
UPDATE: Here's another article on the crash.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35469748/ns/us_news-life
Joseph Stack felt the federal government — especially its tax code — robbed him of his savings and destroyed his career while allowing corrupt executives to walk away with millions.
It's clear from the 3,000-word manifesto posted on a Web site registered in his name that the bitter feud with the Internal Revenue Service was his passion — a passion so deeply held that it apparently drove him to commit suicide Thursday by slamming his single-engine Piper PA-28 into an Austin office building that houses the IRS.
"Nothing changes unless there is a body count," Stack wrote.
Read the rest...
Stimulus Trivia
PresBo and his cronies are running around trying to sell us all on the idea that the stimulus was a great success. So, in honor of that concept, let's look at some little-known aspects of the stimulus program.
It costs $95k per job
Jamie Dupree did an analysis of how much money had been spent and how many jobs it created, and it seems that it costs government $95,000 to create one job.
http://wsbradio.com/blogs/jamie_dupree/2010/02/9630580-per-job.html
For reference, the private sector can create a job for around $31,000... one-third of what the stimulus cost the taxpayers.
http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/how-much-does-it-cost-to-create-a-job-by-encouraging-entrepreneurship/
Stimulus funds being spent on canceled programs
Yes, you read that correctly. Apparently, more than $3.5 billion in stimulus funds are being spent on programs that Obama either reduces or eliminates in his new budget.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-17-stimulus-funds_N.htm
Alabama got $161 billion in stimulus funds
Which equates, by the way, to about $63,000 per job.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33498869/ns/us_news-the_stimulus_tracker/#/all/all/al/all/
So that's a little trivia about the stimulus program that you should keep in mind. It created far fewer jobs than comparable private-sector job creation could have accomplished, and they spent some of this "emergency money" on programs so inherently inefficient that PresBo is now canceling them.
Gee... thanks.
Read the rest...
It costs $95k per job
Jamie Dupree did an analysis of how much money had been spent and how many jobs it created, and it seems that it costs government $95,000 to create one job.
http://wsbradio.com/blogs/jamie_dupree/2010/02/9630580-per-job.html
Of that, $57.3 billion has actually been doled out in awards - which has resulted in 595,262.53 "Jobs Created/Saved." That rounds to 595,263, which is prominently displayed on the home page. So, a little elementary math. Take that $57.3 billion figure (the grants awarded) and divide it by the number of jobs (595,262.53.) For those of you scoring at home, that equals $96,305.80 per job.
For reference, the private sector can create a job for around $31,000... one-third of what the stimulus cost the taxpayers.
http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/how-much-does-it-cost-to-create-a-job-by-encouraging-entrepreneurship/
Multiplying the 5.6 employees in the average new employer firm by the average of the percentage of businesses that have filed for unemployment insurance and F.I.C.A. (18.9) and the percentage of start-up efforts that become businesses (33), we get an estimate of 0.35 jobs created per person who begins the start-up process. At a cost of $9,000 to encourage a person to begin the start-up process, we get a cost of $25,603 per job through efforts to encourage people to become entrepreneurs.
The S.B.A.’s estimate of 5.6 employees per new employer firm is higher than the estimate of 4.6 employees per new employer firm reported by the Kauffman Firm Survey. If we use that number of employees per new employer firm, we would get a cost per job of $31,169.
Stimulus funds being spent on canceled programs
Yes, you read that correctly. Apparently, more than $3.5 billion in stimulus funds are being spent on programs that Obama either reduces or eliminates in his new budget.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-17-stimulus-funds_N.htm
More than $3.5 billion in economic stimulus funds are going to programs that President Obama wants to eliminate or trim in his new budget.
The president's budget released this month recommends getting rid of Army Corps of Engineers' drinking-water projects, which got $200 million in stimulus funds, and a U.S. Department of Agriculture flood-prevention program, which received $290 million from the stimulus, a USA TODAY review of stimulus spending reports show.
The administration's budget plan says the corps and USDA programs are inefficient and duplicate similar, more effective work by other agencies. The proposed cuts indicate the programs shouldn't have gotten money from the $862 billion stimulus package, said Tom Schatz of the non-partisan budget watchdog Citizens Against Government Waste.
"It's certainly inconsistent, and it would have been better to have this realization a year ago," Schatz said. "But if inconsistency means they're going to cut the programs, it's OK. It's the other way around that bothers us."
Alabama got $161 billion in stimulus funds
Which equates, by the way, to about $63,000 per job.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33498869/ns/us_news-the_stimulus_tracker/#/all/all/al/all/
So that's a little trivia about the stimulus program that you should keep in mind. It created far fewer jobs than comparable private-sector job creation could have accomplished, and they spent some of this "emergency money" on programs so inherently inefficient that PresBo is now canceling them.
Gee... thanks.
Read the rest...
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Health Care Summit Is More Partisan Politics
Yes, today we have even MORE evidence that Obama's proposed Health Care Summit is nothing more than political theatre designed to benefit Democrats and hurt Republicans. How much more partisan can an event get?
Today, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that the existing Senate and House bills will NOT be scrapped, and will instead be a "starting point" for the Summit.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/16/sebelius.health.care/
The problem with this attitude is that it assumes we all agree that a big government, high-cost solution is the way to go, and we don't all agree on that. So they're wanting to start with a built-in advantage for liberal ideas, and want the Republicans to go along with it.
Indeed, rank-and-file Congressional Democrats don't see any reason to abandon the idea of shoving the bill through using reconciliation... they see no conflict with that and the idea of a "bipartisan summit."
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_90/news/43258-1.html
It figures, I guess. They don't seem to understand that a "bipartisan bill" requires that you actually let the other side have a say in some things. And right now they don't. STARTING with the existing bills is perpetuating the existing problems with the legislation and exacerbating the partisan nature of it.
The fact remains that the American people do not WANT the bill that PresBo wants to use as a "starting point." In fact, the bill only has 38.1% supporting it with 52.9% opposing it.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
Of course, PresBo seems to think that if he can just tell us ONE MORE TIME how great his bill is, we'll suddenly have en epiphany, see the light, and support his bill. I don't think it'll happen like that.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/15/maybe-if-the-white-house-just
So I will repeat my advice for Republicans. Send a single representative to present PresBo with some ideas to incorporate into his bill. This representative should also deliver a statement to the effect that passing the current Senate bill would constitute a rejection of bipartisanship by the Democrats and will worsen the relationship between the parties. Scrapping the current bills is the absolutely mandatory first step towards reaching a bipartisanship agreement. That should be non-negotiable.
Read the rest...
Today, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that the existing Senate and House bills will NOT be scrapped, and will instead be a "starting point" for the Summit.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/16/sebelius.health.care/
President Obama plans to use the already-passed House and Senate bills as a starting point for next week's health care summit with Republican leaders, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Tuesday.
The problem with this attitude is that it assumes we all agree that a big government, high-cost solution is the way to go, and we don't all agree on that. So they're wanting to start with a built-in advantage for liberal ideas, and want the Republicans to go along with it.
Indeed, rank-and-file Congressional Democrats don't see any reason to abandon the idea of shoving the bill through using reconciliation... they see no conflict with that and the idea of a "bipartisan summit."
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_90/news/43258-1.html
Senate Democrats say they see no need to abandon the idea of using reconciliation to pass health care reform this year just because President Barack Obama has scheduled a bipartisan summit next week to try to break the impasse on Capitol Hill.
It figures, I guess. They don't seem to understand that a "bipartisan bill" requires that you actually let the other side have a say in some things. And right now they don't. STARTING with the existing bills is perpetuating the existing problems with the legislation and exacerbating the partisan nature of it.
The fact remains that the American people do not WANT the bill that PresBo wants to use as a "starting point." In fact, the bill only has 38.1% supporting it with 52.9% opposing it.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
Of course, PresBo seems to think that if he can just tell us ONE MORE TIME how great his bill is, we'll suddenly have en epiphany, see the light, and support his bill. I don't think it'll happen like that.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/15/maybe-if-the-white-house-just
The White House has announced that it will publish a health care reform proposal in advance of the forthcoming bipartisan health care summit. Reports suggest that it will be a House/Senate compromise plan rather than a new White House proposal. The idea, as far as I can tell, is to give Democratic leadership in Congress a mild push to finalize a compromise (and, presumably, a passage strategy to go along with it) and to expose Republicans as having no ideas—or, even better, as standing for wildly unpopular ideas.
As political messaging ploys go, this is probably savvy enough, but I'm not convinced it will have much effect on the pushing a bill toward passage. For one thing, it assumes (or hopes, anyway) that reiterating, yet again, all the awesome benefits of the Democratic plan will somehow cause the public to start liking it. It's the political version of finding out that someone doesn't speak your language and responding by repeating what you just said, only slower and louder. It's also an assumption that just doesn't hold up very well under scrutiny. And as I've said before, I'm not convinced that a bipartisan health care summit that results in continued disagreement and greater partisan animosity is going to do much to soothe a public looking for bipartisan agreement. Sure, Republicans might not look good at the end of the summit, but is that enough to turn the debate around?
So I will repeat my advice for Republicans. Send a single representative to present PresBo with some ideas to incorporate into his bill. This representative should also deliver a statement to the effect that passing the current Senate bill would constitute a rejection of bipartisanship by the Democrats and will worsen the relationship between the parties. Scrapping the current bills is the absolutely mandatory first step towards reaching a bipartisanship agreement. That should be non-negotiable.
Read the rest...
Unions: Raise Taxes For Our Raises
Most people look at a recession as a time to cut back on expenditures and expectations. Our unemployment rate has topped 25% in some areas of Alabama, and it's topped 40% in some areas of the country. In such an environment, when most of us are glad to keep our jobs at our current salary level, one might expect unions to feel the same way. Well, one would be wrong.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/what_union_bosses_think_Em4qoD4qx9ei7QLeYk8v6I
Isn't that just lovely? Many people have no jobs and the rest of us are cutting back in order to make ends meet, but Mesley says to heck with the rest of us. If we have to pay more taxes so he can have a raise, then we'll just have to suck it up and pay the extra taxes... whether we can afford them or not.
This is just another example of what is wrong with unions, especially government unions.
Look, if a private business is unionized, the unions can only push so far for benefits... because if they push too hard they could bankrupt the company and then nobody has a job, and that union group is gone. But with a government union, they can push as hard as they like... profitability doesn't enter into the equation. As Mesley pointed out so eloquently.
It says something when the major growth sector for employment right now is the government. We're cutting back because we have to, but despite state and federal budget woes, they are increasing the size of the government workforce.
And make no mistake, from the viewpoint of economic prosperity, this is a bad development.
Read the rest...
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/what_union_bosses_think_Em4qoD4qx9ei7QLeYk8v6I
Oops. An Albany cop-union boss just let the protect-and-serve mask slip.
Albany Police Officers Union President Chris Mesley says that, regardless of the faltering economy, a no-raise new contract is unacceptable.
And to hell with the public.
"I'm not running a popularity contest here," Mesley said. "If I'm the bad guy to the average citizen . . . and their taxes have go up to cover my raise, I'm very sorry about that, but I have to look out for myself and my membership."
Mesley added: "As the president of the local, I will not accept 'zeroes.' If that means . . . ticking off some taxpayers, then so be it."
Isn't that just lovely? Many people have no jobs and the rest of us are cutting back in order to make ends meet, but Mesley says to heck with the rest of us. If we have to pay more taxes so he can have a raise, then we'll just have to suck it up and pay the extra taxes... whether we can afford them or not.
This is just another example of what is wrong with unions, especially government unions.
Look, if a private business is unionized, the unions can only push so far for benefits... because if they push too hard they could bankrupt the company and then nobody has a job, and that union group is gone. But with a government union, they can push as hard as they like... profitability doesn't enter into the equation. As Mesley pointed out so eloquently.
The message? Sacrifice is for suckers -- not unionized government employees.
Thus do taxpayers end up working longer and harder to pay for the guaranteed salaries and plush benefits of union members.
Mesley admits that he understands that. He just doesn't care.
It says something when the major growth sector for employment right now is the government. We're cutting back because we have to, but despite state and federal budget woes, they are increasing the size of the government workforce.
And make no mistake, from the viewpoint of economic prosperity, this is a bad development.
Read the rest...
PresBo In Political Trouble
I know that a lot can change in three years, but right now PresBo is in a lot of political trouble. Why? Because 52% of Americans don't want him to serve a second term.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/81213-52-say-obama-doesnt-deserve-reelection-
That's how good a job that Obama is doing... his proposals and legislative agenda are so unpopular that more than half want him OUT! Here's one example of what's going on... more people believe that Bush blew up the World Trade Center than believe PresBo's "stimulus" has worked. This doesn't bode well for our fearless leader.
Back in 2006, a poll was taken that showed 33% of people believed Bush was responsible for 9/11... Bush did it.
http://www.seattlepi.com/national/279827_conspiracy02ww.html
But in this CBS poll, only 6% believe PresBo's stimulus has created jobs.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_Obama_Congress_021110.pdf
Despite PresBo's unrealistic and unbelievable assertions that the stimulus has created 1 or 2 million jobs, we don't believe him. And I don't think a huge blitz trying to convince us otherwise will do much good.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35421148/ns/politics-white_house/
As you can see, it's all about getting his liberal cronies re-elected, not about what is best for the country.
PresBo is in big trouble, here. Most people don't want him to be re-elected because they don't think his policies are effective. If he continues to hold a hard line and push the same old liberal policies, his position will continue to worsen.
I have an idea that might help him, too. LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE. We don't like what you're doing, but if you want our support, CHANGE YOUR POLICIES! If you change your policies to be more reasonable and effective, then you'll win back the support of the American people. Clinton did it, and won a second term for his troubles.
Think about it.
Read the rest...
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/81213-52-say-obama-doesnt-deserve-reelection-
52 percent of Americans said President Barack Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012, according to a new poll.
44 percent of all Americans said they would vote to reelect the president in two and a half years, less than the slight majority who said they would prefer to elect someone else.
Obama faces a 44-52 deficit among both all Americans and registered voters, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday. Four percent had no opinion.
That's how good a job that Obama is doing... his proposals and legislative agenda are so unpopular that more than half want him OUT! Here's one example of what's going on... more people believe that Bush blew up the World Trade Center than believe PresBo's "stimulus" has worked. This doesn't bode well for our fearless leader.
Back in 2006, a poll was taken that showed 33% of people believed Bush was responsible for 9/11... Bush did it.
http://www.seattlepi.com/national/279827_conspiracy02ww.html
More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.
But in this CBS poll, only 6% believe PresBo's stimulus has created jobs.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_Obama_Congress_021110.pdf
When it comes to job creation, just 6% say the stimulus package has created jobs, but another 41% expect it will do so. 48% think it won’t. These views have not changed much in recent months, but optimism about the impact of the stimulus package was much higher last summer.
Despite PresBo's unrealistic and unbelievable assertions that the stimulus has created 1 or 2 million jobs, we don't believe him. And I don't think a huge blitz trying to convince us otherwise will do much good.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35421148/ns/politics-white_house/
President Barack Obama, defending his economic stimulus plan on its first anniversary, is dispatching his Cabinet across the country to try to calm an anxious public as Democrats head into potentially devastating congressional elections in November.
As you can see, it's all about getting his liberal cronies re-elected, not about what is best for the country.
PresBo is in big trouble, here. Most people don't want him to be re-elected because they don't think his policies are effective. If he continues to hold a hard line and push the same old liberal policies, his position will continue to worsen.
I have an idea that might help him, too. LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE. We don't like what you're doing, but if you want our support, CHANGE YOUR POLICIES! If you change your policies to be more reasonable and effective, then you'll win back the support of the American people. Clinton did it, and won a second term for his troubles.
Think about it.
Read the rest...
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Is Obama Serious With His HealthCare Summit?
That's the question centering around his health care summit: Does he seriously want to use it, as he claims, to pursue bipartisan solutions, or is it merely political theater designed to benefit Democrats and harm Republicans?
The Republicans claim the latter.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/81031-kyl-dems-have-already-decided-how-to-force-health-bill-through
But is that true? Have Democrats already decided to pass the existing partisan bill? It's looking more and more like that's what they want to do, yes.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/thump-thump-thump-thump-thump-thump
So the language of the summit invitation assumes that either the House and Senate have reached a compromise, or the President is hoping the deadline will enable them to reach that compromise.
Without Republicans. So yes, it does appear that the summit is just a ploy to advance the current bills and harm Congressional Republicans.
As you can see, they hope that the summit will weaken Republicans and strengthen Democrats.
So I will say again that the Republicans should NOT attend this summit as invited. They should send a single representative to present PresBo with some ideas to incorporate. This representative should also deliver a statement that passing the current Senate bill would constitute a rejection of bipartisanship by the Democrats and will worsen the relationship between the parties. Scrapping the current bills is the absolutely mandatory first step towards reaching a bipartisanship agreement. That should be non-negotiable.
Read the rest...
The Republicans claim the latter.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/81031-kyl-dems-have-already-decided-how-to-force-health-bill-through
Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona on Sunday threw more cold water on the chances that his party would cooperate with a Feb. 25 healthcare reform summit at the White House, protesting that Democrats already seem poised to force a bill through Congress.
Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Kyl echoed a claim that congressional Republicans have made for the past week, that President Barack Obama and House and Senate Democrats intend the summit as a public display and not a genuine dialogue. He quoted a recent Wall Street Journal article that asserted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has “set the stage” for using reconciliation to pass the bill. That controversial legislative tactic could allow the bill to pass the Senate with 51
votes instead of 60 as usually required to break a filibuster.
“What that means is they’ve devised the process by which they can jam the bill through that the president has supported in the past, without Republican ideas in it,” Kyl told CNN host Candy Crowley.
But is that true? Have Democrats already decided to pass the existing partisan bill? It's looking more and more like that's what they want to do, yes.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/thump-thump-thump-thump-thump-thump
Friday brought yet more reason to think health care reform has a pulse--still a bit weak, perhaps, but getting stronger.
That passage seems to suggest one of the following is true:
1) House and Senate leadership have nearly finished negotiating a new compromise version of their legislation. The text the administration plans to post will reflect that compromise.
2) House and Senate leadership are still struggling to come to an agreement, if not over what to pass then in what sequence to pass it. The administration hopes this promise will force them to wrap things up.
Actually, conversations with various sources over the weekend make me think the truth is some combination, although I'm relying on people who, in many cases, admit they're not entirely sure themselves. (That could be because not very many people know--or because I'm just not talking to the right people.) But it seems to me that either interpretation would constitute progress of a sort.
So the language of the summit invitation assumes that either the House and Senate have reached a compromise, or the President is hoping the deadline will enable them to reach that compromise.
Without Republicans. So yes, it does appear that the summit is just a ploy to advance the current bills and harm Congressional Republicans.
Here's how one insider analyzed the situation:I think the White House is calling the bluff of leadership for both parties, in both houses. The Democratic leadership has consistently said they are quite close to finalizing an agreement, at least among themselves, so this forces them to finalize or cede the power to the White House to make final calls. The Republican Leadership constantly suggests they have ideas for thoughtful reforms that would constrain costs and expand coverage, but their policies to date do neither well or at all. In fact, there is an argument that they would make things worse, particularly for those who need the help the most–older, sicker American citizens. Insisting the Republicans lock in a particular vision forces their hand more than they want and makes them show the world they are divided or show that they are the obstructionists or show their unified policy vision doesn’t do much on the key issues.
As you can see, they hope that the summit will weaken Republicans and strengthen Democrats.
So I will say again that the Republicans should NOT attend this summit as invited. They should send a single representative to present PresBo with some ideas to incorporate. This representative should also deliver a statement that passing the current Senate bill would constitute a rejection of bipartisanship by the Democrats and will worsen the relationship between the parties. Scrapping the current bills is the absolutely mandatory first step towards reaching a bipartisanship agreement. That should be non-negotiable.
Read the rest...
Key Scientist Admits No Warming In 15 Years
I don't know if you remember Professor Phil Jones, but he is the Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich. This is the organization that maintains the largest body of global temperature records in the world. Jones was also neck-deep in the recent ClimateGate scandal, involving the release of emails suggesting they abused the peer-review process and "cooked the books" on temperature records.
Jones has come under heavy fire in recent weeks, and recently made an almost complete u-turn in what he has been saying.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/climate-professor-leaked-emails-uea
So he admits that the world may not be hotter than ever before, and he admits that temperatures haven't been rising. For 15 years! This amounts to a tacit admission that, contrary to prior claims, the science is not settled.
So there you go... even the leading scientist in the ClimateGate scandal admits that the science isn't settled and the earth isn't warming.
Have you ever heard someone argue that "weather isn't climate?" Basically they're saying that a colder winter doesn't mean the climate has changed, and it's usually used to ridicule those who doubt global warming by pointing to things like the recent blizzards, especially those in the Southern US. We recently heard exactly this language from an Obama administration adviser.
But my question is simple. Jones has admitted that the earth hasn't warmed for FIFTEEN YEARS. Maybe, just maybe, we can admit this isn't a statistical blip and that it may, in fact, indicate a long-term trend. In other words... after 15 years, doesn't weather become climate?
Read the rest...
Jones has come under heavy fire in recent weeks, and recently made an almost complete u-turn in what he has been saying.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/climate-professor-leaked-emails-uea
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’. The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
So he admits that the world may not be hotter than ever before, and he admits that temperatures haven't been rising. For 15 years! This amounts to a tacit admission that, contrary to prior claims, the science is not settled.
But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.
He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.
He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.
So there you go... even the leading scientist in the ClimateGate scandal admits that the science isn't settled and the earth isn't warming.
Have you ever heard someone argue that "weather isn't climate?" Basically they're saying that a colder winter doesn't mean the climate has changed, and it's usually used to ridicule those who doubt global warming by pointing to things like the recent blizzards, especially those in the Southern US. We recently heard exactly this language from an Obama administration adviser.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/81083-lubchenco-on-the-snowstorms-weather-is-not-climate
“It is important that people recognize that weather is not the same thing as climate,” said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Lubchenco, speaking on NPR’s “Diane Rehm Show,” said the planet is warming but that weather is variable. The snowy weather, Lubchenco said, “is not a contradiction and it is not really unexpected.”
But my question is simple. Jones has admitted that the earth hasn't warmed for FIFTEEN YEARS. Maybe, just maybe, we can admit this isn't a statistical blip and that it may, in fact, indicate a long-term trend. In other words... after 15 years, doesn't weather become climate?
Read the rest...
Global Warming: Faulty Temperature Readings
As you know, I am no mindless adherent to the flawed premise that industrialized man has caused the temperature of this planet to rise. Despite numerous and repeated claims that "the science is settled," the most recent evidence is showing exactly the opposite.
For example, let's look at the temperature readings. Surface temperatures are measured with a large number of "temperature stations," many of which have been in the same spot for quite a long time. A recent study, however, shows that much of that temperature data has been delivering faulty numbers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7236011/UN-global-warming-data-skewed-by-heat-from-planes-and-buildings.html
Yes, that is correct. Much of the "warming effect" these stations are measuring doesn't come from greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, it comes from the temperature stations being situated right next to a heat source.
As I've said before, the "science" behind global warming is FAR from being settled. In fact, with all of the recent revelations and scandals, I'd say that global warming theorists have a long way to go in order to show any proof AT ALL supporting their crackpot theory.
Read the rest...
For example, let's look at the temperature readings. Surface temperatures are measured with a large number of "temperature stations," many of which have been in the same spot for quite a long time. A recent study, however, shows that much of that temperature data has been delivering faulty numbers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7236011/UN-global-warming-data-skewed-by-heat-from-planes-and-buildings.html
The report co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate sceptic, shows photographs of weather stations near heat-generating equipment which could be distorting their readings.
Some are next to air-conditioning units or on waste-treatment plants, while one sits alongside a waste incinerator. A weather station at Rome airport was found to catch the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.
Rising temperatures around the stations, which have been in use for 150 years, could also have been caused by urbanisation, the study claimed. One weather station at Manchester airport, which was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields, is now surrounded by heated buildings.
Yes, that is correct. Much of the "warming effect" these stations are measuring doesn't come from greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, it comes from the temperature stations being situated right next to a heat source.
Prof Christy has published research papers examining the effects of local factors on weather stations in California, Alabama and east Africa, which he believes drastically undermine the reliability of global temperature records.
“The story is the same for each one. The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the local weather stations, such as land development,” he said.
Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, also highlighted problems with the weather data used by the IPCC after being invited to review its last report in 2007.
“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.
As I've said before, the "science" behind global warming is FAR from being settled. In fact, with all of the recent revelations and scandals, I'd say that global warming theorists have a long way to go in order to show any proof AT ALL supporting their crackpot theory.
Read the rest...
Monday, February 15, 2010
Shenanigans On The "Jobs Bill"
So the House passed a "jobs bill" that was highly partisan, very liberal, and basically consisted of more government spending... stimulus II. They sent it to the Senate, who ignored it for a while. Then Scott Brown got elected, and the Senate decided they needed a more "balanced" bill. So they scrapped the House bill and Reid asked Baucus to come up with a "bipartisan" jobs bill. Massive spending disappeared and was replaced by tax incentives. The centerpiece was a provision to give businesses a $5,000 tax credit for each new employee hired.
And then Reid killed the Baucus compromise bill and replaced it with a smaller bill that was written by Democrats. Why? Because liberal Democrats were upset that the bill wasn't liberal enough.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32850.html
Nobody really believes that this bill will do much, if anything, to generate job growth. But then, as long as they LOOK LIKE they're doing SOMETHING, they really don't care if it is effective or not.
Reid's move stunned many Democrats.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32878.html
Democrat Blanche Lincoln really ripped Reid for his highly partisan action.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32903.html
Nancy Pelosi, whose huge spending-oriented bill was scrapped in favor of this dinky little proposal, was tepid at best about it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32895.html
In my personal opinion, if you want to know why the Democrats are doing so poorly at legislating is because they are fighting amongst themselves. They look fragmented and disorganized because they ARE fragmented and disorganized.
Which is good for this country.
Read the rest...
And then Reid killed the Baucus compromise bill and replaced it with a smaller bill that was written by Democrats. Why? Because liberal Democrats were upset that the bill wasn't liberal enough.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32850.html
Members of the Senate Finance Committee unveiled a long-awaited bipartisan jobs bill Thursday morning — only to have it scrapped within hours by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
The Nevada Democrat killed the bill after hearing complaints from members of his own caucus, who argued that Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) had gone too far beyond the core goal of job creation in order to win over Republican support.
Reid said his bill would include four basic provisions: Build America bonds, a small-business tax program that allows quick expense write-offs, a one-year extension of the highway act and a bipartisan tax-credit deal struck by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
Nobody really believes that this bill will do much, if anything, to generate job growth. But then, as long as they LOOK LIKE they're doing SOMETHING, they really don't care if it is effective or not.
Reid's move stunned many Democrats.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32878.html
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid led colleagues and the White House to believe he supported a bipartisan jobs bill — only to scuttle the plan as soon as it was released Thursday over concerns it could be used to batter Democratic incumbents, according to Senate sources.
But as Baucus, Grassley and President Barack Obama were preparing to celebrate a rare moment of bipartisan Kumbaya on Thursday, Reid stunned a meeting of Senate Democrats by announcing he was scrapping Baucus-Grassley, replacing it with a much cheaper, more narrowly crafted, $15 billion version.
"Grassley and three to four Republicans would have voted for it, but all the other Republicans would have beaten the living s—t out of us [during the 2010 midterms], claiming the bill was too bloated," said a Democrat who supported Reid's decision, explaining the leader's logic.
Few felt as good about the decision: Republicans say the about-face will only add to an already poisonous partisan atmosphere, liberal Democrats think the bill is too small to do much good and the powerful negotiators of the bipartisan package were left embarrassed, demoralized and befuddled.
Aides to Baucus and Grassley said their bosses didn't know of Reid's decision when they unveiled their bill early Thursday – and expected it to have the leader's support.
Democrat Blanche Lincoln really ripped Reid for his highly partisan action.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32903.html
"Most Americans don't honestly believe that a single political party has all the good ideas. We're not going to accomplish anything until we start governing from the center. I hope the majority leader will reconsider.
It's unusual for a rank-and-file Democrat to publicly criticize her own caucus leader, but Lincoln is one of the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents in the Senate, which may be why she's pushing a more bipartisan jobs bill that was introduced by Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa.).
Nancy Pelosi, whose huge spending-oriented bill was scrapped in favor of this dinky little proposal, was tepid at best about it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32895.html
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered tepid praise for the scaled-down Senate jobs bill Friday, saying that her members "look forward to reviewing" the package.
The Senate bill, however, is a dramatic comedown compared with the $154 billion jobs package the House passed last year. The more limited, $15 billion bill Sen. Harry Reid introduced Thursday focuses far more on tax provisions — although he's promised to take up additional proposals later in the year.
Pelosi indicated in her statement that she'd like to see the "critical pieces" of her bill passed, including infrastructure investments, job training initiatives and funding for local governments.
In my personal opinion, if you want to know why the Democrats are doing so poorly at legislating is because they are fighting amongst themselves. They look fragmented and disorganized because they ARE fragmented and disorganized.
Which is good for this country.
Read the rest...
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Happy Valentine's Day
I want to wish each and every one of you a good Valentine's Day, but I do have a serious question to ask.
Why are you reading a political blog today? Go take your sweetie to dinner somewhere, and make sure they realize what they mean to you!
Read the rest...
Why are you reading a political blog today? Go take your sweetie to dinner somewhere, and make sure they realize what they mean to you!
Read the rest...
Saturday, February 13, 2010
WH: Health Care Summit A Fraud
If you'll remember, the White House has scheduled a "summit" on health care, and invited Republicans to attend. Actually, more than that... PresBo essentially threw down the gauntlet and challenged them to show up with their own plans and ideas. I have already said that this move is "political theater" designed to help him and Congressional Democrats move their existing bill forward.
Now it looks like I'm right, as new statements from the White House indicate that the Democrats will attend with a "final bill" ready, suggesting that the whole thing is designed not so much to listen to Republicans as to demonize them to gain momentum for the Democrats' package.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/80977-white-house-hints-dems-health-talks-could-be-done-before-summit
If the Democrats will have their "comprehensive bill" ready and waiting, what is the conference really for? We knew when Presbo refused to start over and instead used the Senate bill as "a starting point" that he wasn't serious about Republicans having a substantive part in crafting a reform bill. He wants his bill to pass more or less as is... he may have no objection to adding in a Republican suggestion or two, just so long as he has a GOP contribution he can point to in the bill, but he won't tolerate changing the Democrats' bill that they have worked so long on.
IF the Republicans cooperate in this sham of a "summit," and I would hope that it's a BIG "if" at this point, look to Presbo and the Democrats to ridicule and dismiss their suggestions. One or two may be adopted and added to the Senate bill, at which point they will call it "truly bipartisan" and resume partisan attacks if the GOP doesn't rush to support it en masse.
I have to be honest with you, at this moment in time I do not see an upside to participation for the Republicans. The only results from attending this fake summit would be bad... so why attend?
One of my readers made a suggestion that may just have merit... The more I think about it, the better I like it. The GOP should send a single spokesman, possibly Scott Brown, to deliver an outline of GOP ideas... and then leave. Leave PresBo alone with the Democrats, since that's what he seems to really want.
At that point, the Republicans have complied by delivering their plans and ideas, but since they haven't been included in the crafting of the existing legislation and won't be included in future drafting sessions, why should they stick around to do more than deliver their plans? Especially since those plans and ideas will be almost universally dismissed by Democrats?
That's what I think the GOP should do... either refuse to attend or send a single spokesman to deliver their suggestions and then leave. If the Democrats REALLY want to work with Republicans, then they need to actually WORK with Republicans. From scratch.
Scrap the existing ObamaCare plans and start over.
Read the rest...
Now it looks like I'm right, as new statements from the White House indicate that the Democrats will attend with a "final bill" ready, suggesting that the whole thing is designed not so much to listen to Republicans as to demonize them to gain momentum for the Democrats' package.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/80977-white-house-hints-dems-health-talks-could-be-done-before-summit
House and Senate Democrats could complete negotiations on a final healthcare reform package before they sit down with Republicans for a bipartisan summit that will be hosted by President Barack Obama.Since this meeting will be most productive if information is widely available before the meeting, we will post online the text of a proposed health insurance reform package. This legislation would put a stop to insurance company abuses, extend coverage to millions of Americans, get control of skyrocketing premiums and out-of-pocket costs, and reduce the deficit.
It is the President’s hope that the Republican congressional leadership will also put forward their own comprehensive bill to achieve those goals and make it available online as well.
If the Democrats will have their "comprehensive bill" ready and waiting, what is the conference really for? We knew when Presbo refused to start over and instead used the Senate bill as "a starting point" that he wasn't serious about Republicans having a substantive part in crafting a reform bill. He wants his bill to pass more or less as is... he may have no objection to adding in a Republican suggestion or two, just so long as he has a GOP contribution he can point to in the bill, but he won't tolerate changing the Democrats' bill that they have worked so long on.
IF the Republicans cooperate in this sham of a "summit," and I would hope that it's a BIG "if" at this point, look to Presbo and the Democrats to ridicule and dismiss their suggestions. One or two may be adopted and added to the Senate bill, at which point they will call it "truly bipartisan" and resume partisan attacks if the GOP doesn't rush to support it en masse.
I have to be honest with you, at this moment in time I do not see an upside to participation for the Republicans. The only results from attending this fake summit would be bad... so why attend?
One of my readers made a suggestion that may just have merit... The more I think about it, the better I like it. The GOP should send a single spokesman, possibly Scott Brown, to deliver an outline of GOP ideas... and then leave. Leave PresBo alone with the Democrats, since that's what he seems to really want.
At that point, the Republicans have complied by delivering their plans and ideas, but since they haven't been included in the crafting of the existing legislation and won't be included in future drafting sessions, why should they stick around to do more than deliver their plans? Especially since those plans and ideas will be almost universally dismissed by Democrats?
That's what I think the GOP should do... either refuse to attend or send a single spokesman to deliver their suggestions and then leave. If the Democrats REALLY want to work with Republicans, then they need to actually WORK with Republicans. From scratch.
Scrap the existing ObamaCare plans and start over.
Read the rest...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)