America's Quiet Anger

I stumbled upon this article, and I found it quite compelling. James P. Gannon is writing about how much of America is feeling right now, and why. It's a very good read, especially if you happen to think that anybody who opposes ObamaCare and any other Obama initiative is a racist, homophobic, right-wing terrorist.
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/30/americas-quiet-anger

It is the anger of millions of hard-working citizens who pay their bills, send in their income taxes, maintain their homes and repay their mortgage loans -- and see their government reward those who do not.

It is the anger of small town and Middle American folks who have never been to Manhattan, who put their savings in a community bank and borrow from a local credit union, who watch Washington lawmakers and presidents of both parties hand billions in taxpayer bailouts to the reckless Wall Street titans who brought down the economy in 2008.

It is the fury of the voiceless, the powerless, the ordinary nobodies of Flyover Country who are ridiculed, preached to, satirized and insulted by the Celebrity Loudmouths of the two Left Coasts, the Jon Stewarts and Keith Olbermanns, the Paul Krugmans and their ilk.

That's a good opening, but he goes on to explain WHY this anger is being generated.

Most of the angry are not out marching in the streets, waving signs or shouting into bullhorns. And they are not smashing windows or phoning death threats to politicians. They are simply waking up angry in the morning, and going to bed angry at night. And their resentment is multiplied by the media's efforts to portray them all as dangerous, crazy people, and by the effort of certain Democrats to tar them with brush of violent intent.

These quietly angry people gather in their churches while their religions are called divisive and their beliefs are labeled as bigotry, and they pray for a better day. They talk among themselves in their Main Street cafes, at the Rotary club or at their kids' softball games, seeking others who understand their frustration and will not respond with arrogant dismissal.

They are tired of being told they are too stupid to understand the country's complex problems, too rooted in the past to find solutions, too selfish to share what they have worked for with everyone else who wants it.

And then he covers how these people are planning on USING this anger.

They are not reaching for guns or for pitchforks. They are holding their anger within, waiting for their time, watching those in power over-reach and over-indulge.

Their wound is deep, and it will not be salved by more presidential speeches, Congressional hand-outs, or promises of wonderful things to come. They no longer believe any of that. Their quiet rage abides, waiting till it can be expressed in that silent place behind the curtain where the ballot lists the names that they have now committed to an angry memory.

I think he's pretty much got it. We're very tired of being looked down on, ridiculed, and slandered. And as the anger grows, so will our response... in voting booths across America.

And I think THAT is why PresBo hasn't "pivoted to job creation" after he signed ObamaCare, as he had promised he would do. I think THAT is why he and his cronies are STILL talking about it and trying to convince us what a great deal it is for us.

They're starting to realize a little of how we feel and what the probable consequences are, and they're getting just a tad nervous.

Read the rest...

ObamaCare Paybacks May Be On The Way

It looks like the political paybacks for supporting ObamaCare may be starting already. If you'll remember, the final obstacle to passage in the House was Bart Stupak and his gang of 12 pro-life Senators. They suddenly switched their votes in the final hours, for an Executive Order that has no legal power to change or override the provisions of the bill itself.

Or WAS that all they got? Speculation on promises has run wild. But let's look at some facts.

The DAY AFTER Congress approved ObamaCare, the Stupak group asked for a total of $3.4 billion in earmark spending. Possible payback?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/29/pro-life-democrats-switched-vote-health-request-billions-earmarks/

The 11 House Democrats led by Rep. Bart Stupak who dropped their opposition to health care reform legislation mere hours before the final vote have requested $3.4 billion in earmarks -- and one watchdog group wants to know whether the money represents business as usual or political payoffs.

The Sunlight Foundation says it plans to track the earmark requests, which were put in one day after health care reform cleared Congress, to see whether they're approved and whether it appears lawmakers are being rewarded for their vote.

"We know that in Congress one of the ways that leadership tries to influence members is through earmarks," said Bill Allison, editorial director at the nonpartisan organization. "So this seemed to us something good to follow."

I think we'll see a lot of follow-up from the Democrat leadership on promises to members in exchange for their YES votes.


That leadership sold the Democrats in Congress on the idea that voting YES would NOT hurt them in November... they'd experience a post-vote bounce in the polls. The bounce didn't really amount to much, and privately some Democrats are very upset about it.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/03/30/the-numbers-don-t-lie.aspx

A Democratic senator I can't name, who reluctantly voted for the health-care bill out of loyalty to his party and his admiration for Barack Obama, privately complained to me that the measure was political folly, in part because of the way it goes into effect: some taxes first, most benefits later, and rate hikes by insurance companies in between.

Besides that, this Democrat said, people who already have coverage will feel threatened and resentful about helping to cover the uninsured—an emotion they will sanitize for the polltakers into a concern about federal spending and debt.

On the day the president signed into law the "fix-it" addendum to the massive health-care measure, two new polls show just how fearful and skeptical Americans are about the entire enterprise. If the numbers stay where they are—and it's not clear why they will change much between now and November—then the Democrats really are in danger of colossal losses at the polls.

Yes, this November could be bad for Democrats, but I really don't CARE who is in charge... so long as they don't pull the kind of crud that the Democrats are pulling now. I wouldn't mind Democrats being in charge IF they respected the Constitution and the free market, and refrained from trying to grow government and bankrupt the nation.

But it doesn't look like they can manage that...

Read the rest...

Health Care Freedom Act Press Conference Yesterday

A large number of grass-roots activists have been trying very hard to get the Alabama Legislature to actually vote on SB233, the Health Care Freedom Act. The bill would protect our right NOT to be forced into participating in any health care plan... such as ObamaCare.

The Legislature has been lobbied hard in recent weeks. We simply want this bill to come up for a vote, whereas the Legislature seems intent on letting it quietly die.

A press conference was held yesterday, one that was organized by Scott Beason and attracted some 350-400 supporters. I have a statement from one of the grass-roots organizers named Pam. She is also one of those lobbying Legislators over the past few weeks, and has a pretty good idea of where the bill stands. I now turn this blog over to her.

It was a LONG day today, but we have been making progress. Short summation for those not wanting the play-by-play: SB233 was allowed on the floor and is in the process towards a straight up or down vote. Also, the democrats had a meeting within their party, and the black caucus vowed to not let the bill pass. The white caucus told them to do what they needed to, but they were going to vote in favor of the bill. If this is true, we have the votes to pass it, which would make Alabamians the deciding factor.

Before I get into the specifics of the day, here is what is absolutely needed. Call in to your local talk radio shows and tell people about the success we had at the state house today. The democrats had NO idea how important this is and how we would respond. I cannot put into words how much of a difference your presence, phone calls and emails have made. I personally believe we would have had no success in this, but realize we had Lowell Barron vote in favor of putting the bill on the floor for a vote today, and even said that We The People need to have our say in how we choose our health care. Pleasepleasepleaseplease continue to call the statehouse and keep the pressure on. If you live in the Montgomery area and are able, come to the statehouse on Thursday and visit all the senators' offices, encouraging them to vote in favor of putting this on the ballot. Ask why this has not been taken care of yet, since they found a way to get bingo on the ballot. If you need phone numbers, let me know and I'll get them to you asap.

Now, for the juicy stuff.

News flash: Jim Folson, in my humble opinion, is an idiot. Kay Ivey stepped down from her campaign today for governor, and will instead run for Lt. Gov. If we have to put up with the men (and women) in the senate until a later date, we need someone in there who can a:) understand parliamentary procedure, b:) adhere to parliamentary procedure, c:) be fair to BOTH parties in their adherence to parliamentary procedure, and d:) hold our senate to a higher standard than is currently being done.

Bobby Denton (D), Dean of the Senate, of District 1 (Lauderdale and part of Colbert County) brought whatever is the diametric opposite of dignity to himself. When several members of one of the teaparty groups approached him in his office to discuss the health care bill, he ran from them and first, hid behind his secretary who told them to step back because they were scaring her, and then ran into his office, whereupon he peeked from behind his door to see if they were still there. Then, when the senate convened, he sang a song from the floor (he was inducted into the Music Hall of Fame, wow), and bragged/smirked about how he had hidden from the group, and then apologized about it. His disclaimer is that he has had a shunt put in his brain recently, and that he drove a long distance to come to Montgomery. Um, no, that won't work for me. This man has his profession listed as an educator. What??? If you are in his district, his address is 2206 Lisa Ave, Muscle Shoals, AL 35661, phone is 256-7449. His office phone is 334-242-7888. Share some love with him. Often. Just remember that his secretary was assigned to him.

Because some "key" senators were not at the state house when the session convened, shortly after Denton did his little routine, they adjourned for an hour. These key senators were necessary to force the bingo vote. Actually, what they did was to link this bill and SB233 together. So, of course this time our bill was able to see the light of day. Sort of. It took 2.5-3 hours before they voted on the bingo bill. The democrats filibustered for 1.5 hours so the republicans couldn't put any amendments on it. Then, when one of the repubs was talking about his concerns about the issue, a dem popped up on the other microphone and called for cloture in 35 minutes. The first gentleman in my discourse, Foghorn Leghorn Folsom, had no problems hearing over all the noise and set cloture for 6:15. The bill passed 21 for, 13 against. (I must mention that when Sen. Beason was discussing his opposition to the bill, he yielded the mike to another sen stating that he did not yield his time, meaning that he would get the floor back after that senator was done with what he needed to bring up. Folsom "did not hear" Beason, but it's all on tape. I would not like to be at the receiving end of a debate with Beason, I tell you what!)

Another really "special" person in the senate is Roger Bedford. He actually refers to himself as Roger Bedford, as in "when Gov. Riley would bring up tax increases, I just want to remind you that Roger Bedford voted against these raises every time", and in discussing the bingo bill, would comment that Roger Bedford was doing such and so. Highly curious, funny, and very ego-driven, at least to me. The first two times he called himself by his own name, I just shook my head. Then decided it would be worth going to every legislative day from now until he's no longer the senator from Russellville, just to keep a scorecard of how often Roger Bedford talks about Roger Bedford.

Anyhow, when the bingo bill passed, the dems (some of them, anyway) called to adjourn for the night. Foghorn Folsom tried to do so, but was challenged loud enough so even he heard. Roll call was 11 for, one pass and 20 against adjourning, so our bill was brought up. (Remember, you need 18 votes in favor to pass something.) Sen. Smitherman is really proud to show exactly how ignorant and racist he is, because he did so with great fervor, at great length. He took issue with the lack of respect being afforded to Mr. Obama, with how we're taking away health care from 1 million Alabamians in voting for the bill, and more. The best thing about his discourse is he made my brain shut down. Tonight's session was adjourned with the bill on the floor, so it's the first order of business on Thursday. I'm not sure if he could have misrepresented our bill any more than he did tonight. Regardless, it should pass--Beason is pretty sure he has the votes for it. Even Harri-Ann Smith (R in name only), who was in-your-face rude to one of our people when she found out we weren't there to support the bingo bill, told another one of us that she realizes voting for it is the right thing to do. We plan to be at the statehouse again on Thursday, so I will send out another update at that time.

We met a guy tonight who is running against Lowell Barron. His name is Shadrack McGill. I plan on going up there (Scottsboro?) during his campaign and helping all I can to get him elected. I hope your groups will also consider this. There are actually several candidates up against deeply entrenched Dems that we might consider spreading the word for. Because of possible issues, I will be doing this on my own, not as a member of Big Stick Patriots, so there is no suggestion of an endorsement.

It was a pretty stellar day today. We had between 350-400 people mobilize on short notice, in the middle of the day in a work week. Thank you for your actions, not only today, but for the past year. I spoke with the head of security for the state house, and he has only words of praise for the whole movement. You rock, you know! I'm honored to be one of this group.

Read the rest...

Postal Service Wants To Drop Saturday Delivery

The US Postal service wants to drop Saturday delivery in order to save money.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.a0b6766a9ea827cbb5a923f2763e94d1.871&show_article=1

Facing rising costs and declining demand, the United States Postal Service this week unveiled a cost-cutting plan that would trim mail delivery to five days a week and slash some 40,000 jobs.

The USPS said in a statement that it is facing an expected 238 billion dollar budget deficit over the next decade.

Officials said they plan to scale back mail delivery by early 2011, as it attempts to reinvent itself as a leaner, more efficient postal service.

Although this article didn't provide the figure, other articles have placed the savings expected by this move to hit as much as $3 billion per year. In my opinion, that's not a lot to offset an expected $23 billion per year loss.


But I honestly expect that their savings projections are wrong. Think about it... you can't just fire the guys who work on Saturday, because those people also work during the week. So all you're doing is paying those people for one day's less work.

Now the USPS claims that cutting Saturday delivery will allow them to reduce their workforce. I'm not sure how they reach that conclusion... it doesn't make sense to me.

Let's look at the pointy end of this particular stick, the mail carriers. Each mail carrier has a route he has to run every day, and he must run the entire route every day. I believe that the routes must be finished by 5:00 PM each day. You can bet that the USPS has the routes balanced with the current mail volume to make sure the routes aren't too big or too small.

So they slash Saturday delivery... what happens? The mail volume hasn't suddenly decreased, just the delivery days, so that means the mail that WOULD have been delivered on Saturday will have to be delivered on other days of the week. As the per-day mail volume per route increases, many carriers will be unable to complete their routes in the available time.

The result? The USPS will have to juggle things around, shortening some routes and creating new routes to handle the overflow. The result could EASILY be an INCREASE in the number of mail carriers.

I don't have access to the numbers and inside information the USPS is using for their estimates, but the proposed plan of action doesn't pass the basic logic test.

And keep in mind that mail processing facilities will still be open on weekends... the mail still moves across the country and arrives at processing centers on Saturdays and Sundays.

One final observation: It must be nice to be able to slash 1/6th of your work days and keep your entire budget. Private businesses don't have that option.

So put me down as skeptical on this one.

Read the rest...

Spending Increased, Income Remained Stagnant

It seems that spending increased in February while incomes remained stagnant. Without employment gains, that's a "rebound" that can't be sustained.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNAFF6TIVZXc&pos=3

Consumer spending in the U.S. rose in February for a fifth consecutive month, a rebound that will require gains in employment to be sustained.

The 0.3 percent increase in purchases matched the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News and followed a 0.4 percent advance in January, Commerce Department figures showed today in Washington. Incomes were unchanged, falling short of expectations as winter storms hurt hiring and hours worked.

So, how does spending increase while incomes remain the same? Easy, households have been spending some of their savings.

Best Buy Co. and Nike Inc., which have reported higher- than-anticipated profits, are among companies that may keep benefitting as the emerging recovery gives Americans the confidence to buy. The pickup in purchases has caused the household savings rate to drop to the lowest level in more than a year, underscoring the need for more jobs to ensure the recovery is maintained.

Read the rest...

Census Workers To Distort March Jobless Numbers

The March job numbers should come out within a week or two, but keep something in mind when you read them. What we NEED in this country is falling unemployment rates because of sustained hiring in the private sector. What we will likely get IS a decrease in the unemployment rates, but it will be caused by the temporary hiring of 600,000 census workers.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/03/29/prelude-media-victory-lap-santelli-warns-not-buy-hype-upcoming-jobs-data

With March unemployment data to be released April 2, some are anticipating what potentially lower jobless numbers will all mean for the financial markets and the economy as a whole. However, that data will come with the caveat that it will be misleading because it will include temporary jobs driven by hiring for the 2010 census.

On CNBC's March 29 "Squawk Box," CME floor reporter Rick Santelli was asked how to interpret the expected improvement. He warned it isn't the kind of job creation that is good for a sustained economic recovery.

I don't know if PresBo, Democrats, and the media will acknowledge the fact of newly hired census workers or not, but we need to keep them in mind. Why? Because those workers won't be around forever, and we'll likely see unemployment rates jump up again once the census workers are no longer needed.

"I think traditional media is going to overplay this," Santelli said. "I think markets like interest rates will overcompensate, but they will adjust back because I don't think anybody believes that the 200,000-300,000 pace we could see this month is going to maintain itself for many months in a row."

Joe Kernen, co-host of "Squawk Box," predicted Obama administration officials will be reluctant to acknowledge the census hiring and its impact on the upcoming unemployment data.

"You won't hear anyone mention census, either. I guarantee it," Kernen said. "Not in the administration. Not when they're taking the victory laps for 250,000."

Having those people employed short-term will help things a bit, but let's not confuse what we'll shortly see with long-term, sustained growth in the private sector.

Read the rest...

Census: Final Numbers May Be Wrong...

The US government is spending a veritable FORTUNE on running the 2010 census and making sure we respond to it. They're hiring hundreds of thousands of workers, and I have received not only my census form but also TWO reminders to send it in promptly... one before I received the census form, and one after. And with all this money being spent, IT problems may result in inaccurate numbers being recorded.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63380

Information Technology (IT) problems at the U.S. Census Bureau could cause inaccuracies in this year's constitutionally mandated decennial tabulation of the U.S. population, according to government auditors.

“IT problems place the efficiency and accuracy of Non-Response Follow-Up at risk and final decennial costs remain uncertain,” testified Judith Gordon, the principal assistant inspector general for Audit and Evaluation at the Department of Commerce, which runs the Census Bureau.

Well isn't that special? Pray tell me, are we really going to let the faulty information collected by these incompetents be used for serious purposes? The government has KNOWN about the problems for quite a while.

The Census Bureau is specifically having problems with two IT systems. One is the Paper-Based Operational Control System (PBOC), which is an computer system used to manage the information collected during field operations such as NRFU.

The second is Decennial Applicant Personnel and Payroll System (DAPPS), which is the system used to keep track of, and pay, the more than 600,000 temporary federal workers who help conduct the Census’s NFRU field operations.

Last Thursday, the Government Accountability Office released a report authored by Goldenkoff on the Census Bureau’s IT problems entitle, “Data Collection is Under Way, But Reliability of Key Information Technology Systems Remains a Risk.” The report indicated that the government has known about the problem for some time.

The report said that last February, the GAO had testified that “key IT systems -- most notably an automated system used to manage field data collection known as the Paper-Based Operations Control System (PBOCS) and a personnel and payroll processing system called the Decennial Applicant Personnel and Payroll System (DAPPS) -- were experiencing significant performance issues.” The report documents Goldenkoff's testimony before the House subcommittee.

Lovely, isn't it? And these people are so clueless that they still are "confident" that things will go off without a hitch.

Nevertheless, the Census Bureau's Jackson was optimistic that the bureau would be successful in its count despite the highlighted IT problems.

“We feel that we are more than prepared to do a successful Non-Response Follow-Up at a range of response estimates on time and within the budget we have,” testified Jackson

Lord help us all.

Read the rest...

More Guns = Less Crime

In 1998, John Lott wrote his best-selling book "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws." The book made the claim, hotly disputed by gun control activists, that armed citizens actually deter violent crimes from happening.

In recent years, when some states have moved toward legalizing concealed carry laws, opponents have made the claims that doing so would increase crime rates. Indeed, we've heard numerous descriptions of "wild west" consequences, not to mention "rivers of blood" in the streets.

Today, more states than ever have legalized concealed carry, and gun ownership has increased dramatically over the past few years. The result? Murder and violent crime rates have plummeted.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/page/3/

In the 1980s and ’90s, as the concealed-carry movement gained steam, Americans were killed by others with guns at the rate of about 5.66 per 100,000 population. In this decade, the rate has fallen to just over 4.07 per 100,000, a 28 percent drop. The decline follows a fivefold increase in the number of “shall-issue” and unrestricted concealed-carry states from 1986 to 2006.

The decline in gun homicides also comes as U.S. firearm sales are skyrocketing, according to federal background checks that are required for most gun sales. After holding stable at 8.5 to 9 million checks from 1999 to 2005, the FBI reported a surge to 10 million in 2006, 11 million in 2007, nearly 13 million in 2008 and more than 14 million last year, a 55 percent increase in just four years.

No study has shown a causal effect between concealed carry and dropping crime rates, but that is simply because the data that would establish or disprove such an assertion has never been collected.


If gun rights activists are correct in concluding that more guns = more violence, we would not be seeing the massive drop in crime rates that we are seeing today.

So the gun control liberals were wrong... isn't THAT a surprise?

Guns don't cause crimes, people do. And few people want, as a result of their crime, to die. So they are less likely to attack an armed victim. Pretty basic logic, here.

Read the rest...

Utah Uses Eminent Domain... Against Feds!

This promises to be a VERY interesting battle between the federal government and Utah.

Utah, you see, is upset that the Federal government has seized ownership of 60% of all the land within the state. They say that this restricts the development options they have for their state, and has a negative impact on tax revenue growth. Taking the SCOTUS ruling in Kelo at face value, this means they have the power to seize the property they want in order to increase tax revenue.

The fact that the property they want is owned by the Federal government shouldn't be an issue, they say. And so Utah has passed a law that will seize control of two federally-owned parcels of land under the principle of eminent domain.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032801320.html?hpid=sec-nation

More than 60 percent of Utah is owned by the U.S. government, and policy makers here have long complained that federal ownership hinders their ability to generate tax revenue and adequately fund public schools.

[Governor] Herbert signed a pair of bills into law that supporters hope will trigger a flood of similar legislation throughout the West, where lawmakers contend that federal ownership restricts economic development in an energy-rich part of the country.

It's a nice little argument, and I'm VERY interested to see how it plays out in court. If Utah loses, the message from SCOTUS to us will be that the Federal government is the King and the rest of us are just serfs.


What happened to "the power to govern flows from the consent of the governed?"

I have long argued that the various immunities enjoyed by elected officials and government employees is destructive to limited government, because they can do outrageous things without dealing with the consequences. It sets up masters, servants, and slaves.

In this case, the masters would be the federal government, the servants would be the state governments, and the slaves would be all of us ordinary citizens.

Is that REALLY how you think our country should operate?

No, me neither. So I'm rooting for Utah on this one.

Read the rest...

SCOTUS Will Probably Hear Challenges To ObamaCare

One thing is clear to just about everybody, challenges to ObamaCare will likely end up in the US Supreme Court. Another thing that is clear to everyone is that the future complexion of our government hangs in the balance.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/29/health-care-mandate-at-court-steps/

At issue is the scope of the federal government's power over states and individuals. Critics of the law say the requirement that all Americans buy insurance or pay a fine, if allowed, would mean that Congress has virtually boundless authority to compel actions. Proponents argue that legal precedents support an expansive reading of the legislative branch's license to regulate such activity.

Among the arguments against the law is that because it does not allow for purchasing insurance across state lines - the insurance exchanges are state-based - the buying of health insurance does not constitute interstate commerce. In addition, the plaintiffs say, not purchasing health insurance does not constitute an economic activity.

"Thus far in our history, it has never been held that the Commerce Clause, even when aided by the Necessary and Proper Clause, can be used to require citizens to buy goods or services," Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II argues in his state's lawsuit. "To depart from that history to permit the national government to require the purchase of goods or services would ... create powers indistinguishable from a general police power in total derogation of our constitutional scheme of enumerated powers."

Make no mistake, this is a critically important issue. Our government was founded as one of limited and enumerated powers, and implemented in such a way as to protect and nurture freedom and individual rights. This new law reverses all of that, granting to the government virtually unlimited powers to control and regulate individual behavior. That's not the power granted to the government of a free nation, it is the power seized by a dictator or other authoritarian regime.

And that is the antithesis of freedom.


One liberal talking point I've heard many times is that "most other countries in the world have it, so why shouldn't we?" Quite a few of those countries also have brutal, repressive governments that treat ordinary citizens like slaves or worse... should we also have THAT?

To paraphrase my mother from the dimly remembered days of my childhood, if Nancy Pelosi were to jump off a cliff, would you follow her?

Just because others are doing something doesn't mean that what they are doing is good, wise, or worth copying. So it's a lousy reason to pass this law.

I just hope that the Supreme Court hears challenges to the law quickly, and doesn't make us wait until 2016 or 2018 for the first rulings. An unconstitutional law MUST NOT be allowed to stand for six years before it can be challenged. Rapid constitutional review is essential.

Read the rest...

ObamaCare News Roundup

Here are some news stories about ObamaCare that might interest you.

Democrats threaten companies complying with the law
Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has summoned some of the nation's top executives to Capitol Hill to defend their assessment that the new national health care reform law will cost their companies hundreds of millions of dollars in health insurance expenses. Waxman is also demanding that the executives give lawmakers internal company documents related to health care finances -- a move one committee Republican describes as "an attempt to intimidate and silence opponents of the Democrats' flawed health care reform legislation."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Democrats-threaten-companies-hit-hard-by-health-care-bill-89347127.html

Individual Mandate Won't Work
This article makes the case that the individual mandate won't be the panacea that liberals have led us to believe. It looks at the issue from several angles.
http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/09/the-madness-of-the-mandate

Individual mandate penalties not enforceable
Amazingly, the penalties levied for refusing to purchase insurance aren't enforceable by the IRS. Take a look at what the law says.
http://ow.ly/1saHi


Three potential problems ObamaCare could cause for Democrats
Those three areas are costs, consumer protection loopholes, and enforcement difficulties. I think they miss a few, but it's still a good read.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001349-503544.html

Majority STILL oppose ObamaCare
Yes, Democrats saw a small boost immediately after passage, but that appears to have been very short-lived.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/health_care_plan

And another link showing the same thing:
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/03/28/obamas-health-care-bounce-disappates/

And another...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032804094.html?hpid=topnews

Enforcement of ObamaCare could cost up to $1 billion in salaries alone
This is a calculation based upon personnel estimates and average salary figures that are on the record, and released in a GOP committee report.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=132629

Senator Bauccus admits ObamaCare an "income shift" to help the poor
"Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind," he said. "Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/26/democratic-senator-health-care-law-address-mal-distribution-income/

What thrills liberals will scare away centrists
Neglecting the center and taking a "by any means necessary" approach will convince moderates that the Democrats are irresponsible with their new power -- and drive many independent voters away from the party even if the economy improves.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/What-thrills-the-Left-will-scare-away-the-center-89363077.html

That's the roundup. I hope you found them informative, interesting, and entertaining.

Read the rest...

Poll Numbers Bad For Democrats On ObamaCare

Last week, after liberals managed to ram through their highly partisan ObamaCare law, they liked ONE poll. That poll was the USA Today/Gallup poll that showed 49% percent of respondents calling passage "a good thing" and just 40 percent saying it was a bad thing. The REASON they liked only this poll, is that it was the only poll showing more people favoring the new law than opposing it. Though most other polls did show a positive jump in approval ratings, they still showed those opposing outnumbering those favoring.

Somewhat to their dismay, that same poll one week later shows 50% opposing the law and 47% favoring it.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0310/about_that_poll_1834923c-21db-4bba-8e45-17a81a763935.html

"There was on the Democratic side a burst of enthusiasm after it passed saying, 'Ah, now voters are being won over,' " says Charles Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who studies polling. "The cumulating data this past seven days says that, no, a miracle didn't happen and the public didn't suddenly change their views on this. It means that the Democrats still face a tough sell of a public close to evenly divided on this and even slightly more opposed than in favor, and that difficulty didn't go away with passage."

A one-day poll taken immediately after a major event is subject not only to sampling error but also to very short-term effects, he says. On the day after the bill passed, he notes, "the news cycle was dominated by the positive side of the story and only a bit by the Republicans' rebuttal to that."

Yes, Democrats enjoyed a short-term boost from passage, but continued polling indicates that the miracle they told Congressional Democrats to depend on hasn't yet materialized.


Read the rest...

Obama's Idea Of How Government Works

So how does PresBo think the government works? Recess appointments to approve people Congress won't, executive orders for things Congress won't approve, and Presidentially created panels when Congress won't create a real one. Here's a handy graphic which should open an eye or two.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/mar/27/legislating-law-obama-way/

There's not a lot of respect for law and process, here... It looks more like a man doing whatever it is he wants to do, regardless of what is right, what is constitutional, or what people think.


Read the rest...

Poll: More Agree With Tea Partiers Than With Congress

This is an interesting poll, and I thank Rasmussen for conducting it. He found that more people agree with Tea Partiers and trust their values than do for Congress.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2010/most_say_tea_party_has_better_understanding_of_issues_than_congress

In official Washington, some consider the Tea Party movement a fringe element in society, but voters across the nation feel closer to the Tea Party movement than they do to Congress.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 52% of U.S. voters believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress. Only 30% believe that those in Congress have a better understanding of the key issues facing the nation.

When it comes to those issues, 47% think that their own political views are closer to those of the average Tea Party member than to the views of the average member of Congress. On this point, 26% feel closer to Congress.

Finally, 46% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is more ethical than the average member of Congress. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say that the average member of Congress is more ethical.

That's pretty telling, if you ask me. This IS a Tea Party nation right now, which just underscores how badly Democrats erred in believing otherwise. And our elected officials are terribly out of touch with how the public thinks and feels.

As you would expect, there is a wide divide between the Political Class and Mainstream Americans on these questions. Seventy-five percent (75%) of those in the Political Class say that members of Congress are better informed on the issues. Among Mainstream Americans, 68% have the opposite view, and only 16% believe Congress is better informed.

By a 62% to 12% margin, Mainstream Americans say the Tea Party is closer to their views. By a 90% to one percent (1%) margin, the Political Class feels closer to Congress.

“The gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century,” Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, says in his new book, In Search of Self-Governance. “If we had to rely on politicians to fix these problems, the outlook for the nation would be bleak indeed. Fortunately, in America, the politicians aren’t nearly as important as they think they are.”

Yes, those who would be our political masters are, indeed, out of touch with the country as a whole. We don't want what they're selling, but they have shown that they don't really care. Heck, even 28% of DEMOCRATS say their views are closer to the Tea Party than Congress. That says something important...

Read the rest...

What Do You Think Of Counterpunch?

Okay, Sherry and I have done four episodes of Counterpunch! so far, and now it's time to find out what you think of the feature. Take the following poll and tell us your opinion. The poll allows comments, so leave your comments at the same time that you vote.

What do YOU think of the Counterpunch! feature that we've been offering for the past month?





Read the rest...

Counterpunch! Episode #4

Welcome to Counterpunch! Episode #4. Today's question: Should Alabama participate in the lawsuit challenging the newly passed health care law?

http://www.politicsalabama.org/files/Counterpunch/CP_Episode4.mp3

Speaking in favor is myself, and opposed is Sherry Walker of Left In Alabama.

Here is a transcript of my argument.

Yes, I think that would be a wise thing to do.

We live in a nation where the powers of Congress are limited by the US Constitution… there are things that Congress simply cannot do to individuals or states. And when Congress decides to trample on our individual rights, it is incumbent on individuals to stand up and challenge them in court. But when Congress decides to trample on the rights and powers of the states, then the States MUST challenge them.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that our federal government can’t simply decide one day to “commandeer” the state legislatures for federal purposes. They can’t suddenly start regulating and controlling areas that have traditionally been the responsibility of the states.

And that’s what ObamaCare does. Traditionally, the states have regulated most aspects of healthcare delivery, including hospitals, health insurance, and the licensing of medical professionals such as doctors, nurses, and pharmacists. ObamaCare imposes federal regulations in all these areas, and this appears to be a direct violation of existing Supreme Court precedent.

And because of that, Alabama should challenge the law in court.

For Politics Alabama, I am Matthew Givens.

Read the rest...

PresBo's Popularity Boost Gone

One week ago today, PresBo and Congressional Democrats passed ObamaCare. Since that day, you've heard them talking about how passage of ObamaCare resulted in a boost of PresBo's approval ratings. This is true in a modest way... but that increase has now disappeared, and his Presidential Approval Index is right back where it was last Sunday prior to passage of the law. And it appears as if all of the bouncing came from Democrats changing their opinions, not Republicans or independents.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16 (see trends).

The President enjoyed a modest bounce in the polls following the passage of health care legislation last week. However, his Approval Index rating is now back to where it was last Sunday, just before the House voted in favor of his health care plan. All the bouncing of the past week has come among Democrats. There has been virtually no change in the opinions of Republicans and unaffiliated voters.

Let's look at the numbers. Last week his presidential approval index was -16, with 26% strongly approving and 42% strongly disapproving. Overall, 45% approved and 54% disapproved.


Today, his Presidential Approval Index is again at -16, with 28% strongly approving and 44% strongly disapproving. Overall, 47% approve and 53% disapprove.

In the intervening week, his approval ratings peaked on Friday at -10, with 31% strongly approving and 41% strongly disapproving. Overall, on Friday 49% approved and 51% disapproved. So even that boost didn't translate into positive approval numbers.

And the boost is gone now. But as you can see, those who disapproved didn't vary that much... the boost came from Democrats deciding they approved more of him because of passage. So far, that seems to have been a transitory blip in the midst of a sea of bad approval ratings.

Time will tell. But so far, this doesn't look good for Democrats.

Read the rest...

Early ObamaCare Results: Companies Losing Value

One of the ways that Presbo and the Democrats decided to finance ObamaCare was by increasing taxes on corporations who choose to offer drug benefits to retirees instead of dumping them off on Medicare. So the bill is now law, and those companies are required to immediately restate their value to reflect their long-term health liabilities... including taxes.

So several high-profile companies have done so, and in the process "written down" their net worth by quite a lot of money... collectively, the new law cost them almost $1.4 billion.

And Democrats are quite upset.

On top of AT&T's $1 billion, the writedown wave so far includes Deere & Co., $150 million; Caterpillar, $100 million; AK Steel, $31 million; 3M, $90 million; and Valero Energy, up to $20 million. Verizon has also warned its employees about its new higher health-care costs, and there will be many more in the coming days and weeks.

As Joe Biden might put it, this is a big, er, deal for shareholders and the economy. The consulting firm Towers Watson estimates that the total hit this year will reach nearly $14 billion, unless corporations cut retiree drug benefits when their labor contracts let them.

This wholesale destruction of wealth and capital came with more than ample warning. Turning over every couch cushion to make their new entitlement look affordable under Beltway accounting rules, Democrats decided to raise taxes on companies that do the public service of offering prescription drug benefits to their retirees instead of dumping them into Medicare. We and others warned this would lead to AT&T-like results, but like so many other ObamaCare objections Democrats waved them off as self-serving or "political."

Henry Waxman and House Democrats announced yesterday that they will haul these companies in for an April 21 hearing because their judgment "appears to conflict with independent analyses, which show that the new law will expand coverage and bring down costs."

In other words, shoot the messenger. Black-letter financial accounting rules require that corporations immediately restate their earnings to reflect the present value of their long-term health liabilities, including a higher tax burden. Should these companies have played chicken with the Securities and Exchange Commission to avoid this politically inconvenient reality? Democrats don't like what their bill is doing in the real world, so they now want to intimidate CEOs into keeping quiet.

So the first effect of ObamaCare is to hurt corporations to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars of value. And Democrats, instead of giving voice to an honest mea culpa, are now turning on those companies and want to punish the victims!

Isn't this just so... progressive?

Read the rest...

Unemployment Benefits To Lapse For One Week

Okay, this ought to be interesting. Democrats were trying to extend unemployment benefits yet again, when they were stopped by Senator Coburn (R). Coburn is leading a filibuster against the benefits, which would cost another $9 billion or so, because they weren't paid for and would add to our already monstrous debt. Now that the Senate has adjourned for Easter, the existing benefits will lapse for at least a week until the Senate can reconvene.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/89343-unemployment-benefits-to-lapse-for-a-week

Coburn blocked an effort to pass the package of extensions, which included a freeze in scheduled cuts to doctors' Medicare payments and a satellite television licensing provision to allow rural viewers to continue receiving network signals. Coburn objected to the measure because it wasn't paid for and would therefore add to the federal deficit.

Democrats have blamed Republicans for blocking the measure to extend the expiring provisions, but a GOP aide retorted that Democrats approved an adjournment resolution Thursday evening without reaching a deal on benefits.

Democratic and Republican senators reached an agreement late Thursday to pay for the $9.2 billion cost of a one-week extension. House Democratic leaders, however, balked at the proposal to offset the cost of the package because it would violate a tradition of not counting emergency spending measures against the budget.

Did you catch the last part? Some traditions are good, and some are bad, but this one is just plain ludicrous. If the money is spent, it comes out of the budget whether the spending was "emergency" in nature or not. The money is spent, and therefore it becomes part of our yearly deficit and our burgeoning national debt.


The Democrats are CLAIMING they want to get the deficit "under control," but you must admit that they're showing absolutely no sign of actually DOING that. They always have excuses and explanations why THIS extra spending is okay. As long as they continue to do that, we will NEVER "get the deficit under control," and we will continue our slide into bankruptcy and insolvency.

And I support Coburn's action for another reason, as well. Unemployment benefits are on the verge of becoming another entitlement... a benefit that will never end. If we subsidize unemployment through benefits then we will get more unemployment... and that's not what we need. And we sure as heck don't need a system where people who lose their jobs get free money from the government for two years or more.

It's time to realize two things: Our government doesn't have the money to constantly extend unemployment benefits, and doing so is NOT helping our economy or our unemployment rate.

Read the rest...

Purpose Of ObamaCare: Support Deadbeats

I'm not sure how I missed this one, but Nancy Pelosi said something very revealing on March 12. In an interview with Rachel Maddow, Pelosi admitted that ObamaCare was at least partially aimed at providing handouts to those who don't WANT to have a job.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35835370/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance.

I know, you kinda have to read that two or three times to get your head around what she said. Go ahead and re-read it... I'll wait.

Finished? Good. Now let's discuss it.


We can aim at that if we want to, but the consequences of doing so will be felt. As I've said before in other contexts, if you subsidize something then you get more of it. In this case, if we subsidize those who don't WANT to hold down a day job, then we will get fewer people doing it.

Why would we consciously set up a system that would punish achievers and reward deadbeats? If that happens, rest assured we will get far fewer achievers and many more deadbeats. And that is NOT a good thing.

In my opinion, health care can only get MORE expensive under ObamaCare. First, because of all the additional money that the government will spend under the new law. Second, citizens will spend more money on health insurance as ObamaCare causes premiums to rise. Third, portions of the law punish medical innovation, and that ALSO will put quite a crimp in our health care system.

The results, if ever fully implemented, will be not good.

Read the rest...

National Debt: We're In Trouble, Guys

Okay, Democrats, you got your new entitlement program passed. Now would you kindly turn your attention to our debt crisis? Greece went under when its spending hit 100% of GDP. That's generally considered the tipping point of national solvency, and it's a point we're on the verge of reaching... and will far exceed in the next two or three years.

So, we're a larger, richer, and more stable nation than Greece, which means our "tipping point" will likely be higher, but the point is that we're entering dangerous territory, here. Moody's has already issued warnings that the US bond rating will be downgraded if we don't take steps to reign in the rapidly exploding national debt. Such a move would be a major sign of a nation on the verge of bankruptcy from too much spending...

The Democrats have responded to this situation by adding another entitlement program to our government (health insurance), even though it is the rising cost of entitlement programs that have gotten us to this point.

Our debt problem is likely to get worse as interest rates start to rise again... which will eventually happen. As rates rise, so will the amount of money we have to pay on our debt, which will in turn increase our deficit, thus increasing the national debt. This is a vicious cycle, and it's a bad one to be caught in.


The only way to reduce the debt is to stop spending more money than we have... eliminate the deficit and turn it into a surplus, which is used to pay down the remaining debt.

There are TWO ways to balance a budget: either curtail spending or increase revenue, i.e. increase taxes.

The vast majority of our yearly expenditures come from entitlement programs, which the Democrats have just expanded and are therefore unlikely to support cutting. That leaves tax increases.

We are already hearing strong rumbles about a national VAT (Value Added Tax) being levied in order to balance the budget. If the rate is set high enough, it might just work... for a while, that is, though the economic repercussions would be severe. But this method doesn't solve the problem, it merely POSTPONES it.

Raising taxes doesn't solve the underlying problem, because as spending increases because of rising interest rates and increased entitlement spending, eventually MORE tax increases will be necessary to keep things in balance.

The only long-term, viable solution is to get spending under control. Without limits on spending, tax increases will do little more than slow down our collapse... and make it far worse than what it would be like today.

America today is like the Dodo trying to get out of a hole by digging deeper. The first thing we must do is stop digging. Without spending controls, America keeps digging herself deeper into debt.

And remember what happened to the dodo...

Read the rest...

About Threats And Violence

We've been hearing a lot lately about the threats and curses being received by Democrats who voted in favor of ObamaCare. I believe there is some truth to the claims, but I also suspect that the claims have been exaggerated and politicized by Democrats for political gain.

But let's deal with the issue of ObamaCare opponents threatening and harassing Democrat Congressmen who just passed ObamaCare.

My political beliefs are essentially libertarian, which means I'm not a big fan of one entity (person or government) using force on another entity (person or government). Much of my opposition to things like ObamaCare is rooted in my objection to the use of force by government on its citizens.

But that also means that I deplore force (threats of violence included) used by people against other people. Using force to DEFEND oneself is fine, but I will not initiate violence against another... nor will I sanction that action by others.

Obviously, threatening politicians for their votes is wrong... though I do think that politicians should be held civilly and criminally liable for their actions while in office, but that's an entirely different issue.

That's one side of it. The other side of it is... what did they expect? In reality, I mean. All theory and ideological beliefs aside, what did they really expect?


People are people, and many people will respond to great anger and frustration with words and action. These people are angry and frustrated because the Democrats used narrow majorities to force upon us a law that the majority of us don't want... and that 62% of us want the GOP to keep fighting against. The Democrats should have EXPECTED anger and frustration, with all the attendant ramifications.

Of the tens of millions of people who have protested against ObamaCare, only a small handful are resorting to threats and violence. Assuming that we have 1,000 such people taking action, and by all accounts the number more likely tops out at a tenth of that, that means that no more than 0.0006% of opponents are involved. (Polls show about 50% opposed to ObamaCare, and 50% of population is about 150 million, divided into 1,000 agitators.) In other words, the extreme fringe.

I do not believe that anger and frustration justify these threats and attacks, and I hope the people involved are caught and punished before anybody gets hurt. However, given the degree of social engineering engaged in here, it is unsurprising that we are seeing this kind of response from a small minority of protesters. In that, it is a measure of how far ahead of the American people the Democrats have gotten, and how out of touch they are with what we do and don't want.

One could expect similar events if Congress were to approve an amendment re-legalizing slavery, for example. The more society disagrees with the action, the more explosive will be the negative reactions.

I think the Democrats need to stop trying to score political points with these threats and let law enforcement officers handle the situations as they arise. Conservatives have been threatened for a lot less... just ask Anne Coulter, who recently had a speaking engagement canceled because of threats of violence about what she MIGHT say. By politicizing the threats, Democrats are merely inflaming the situation. All to score political points? That's a terrible reason.

And those of you who may be contemplating violence... Get a grip, will you?

Read the rest...

Anti-ObamaCare Campaign Ad

I'm not a huge fan of the Republicans, but since no other political party is running candidates in November, Republicans are the only alternative we will have to the Democrats. And I think that this advertisement is effective, and is probably a good start. This is the line they need to take in order to maximize gains in November.

But they'd better mean it...



If player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUMVGDkhIcE


Read the rest...

Social Security Underfunded NOW!

Unless something is done, Social Security is projected to spend more money in benefits than it takes in this year. Until now, that was not projected to happen until 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?sudsredirect=true

This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Analysts have long tried to predict the year when Social Security would pay out more than it took in because they view it as a tipping point — the first step of a long, slow march to insolvency, unless Congress strengthens the program’s finances.

“When the level of the trust fund gets to zero, you have to cut benefits,” Alan Greenspan, architect of the plan to rescue the Social Security program the last time it got into trouble, in the early 1980s, said on Wednesday.

This is a big deal, people, and it's a VERY good example of why we definitely do NOT need to add on another entitlement program... like ObamaCare.


This could have a lot of repercussions in upcoming months and years.

Read the rest...

ObamaCare Taxes Will Kill Jobs

One of the goodies in the ObamaCare bill is a 10% tax on tanning salons. Not that it makes much sense, but the tax increase starts in July. Expect some tanning salons to close over this, and some employees to lose their jobs.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/24/news/economy/tanning_tax/index.htm

The tanning tax will go into effect July 1 and will apply to electronic products designed for tanning that use one or more ultraviolet lamps with wavelengths between 200 and 400 nanometers. Other sunless tanning options such as spray tans and tanning lotions are not included in the tax.

"This is going to close tanning salons," said Joseph Levy, vice president of the International Smart Tan Network, which has 3,000 member salons. "You can't just pass on a tax like this to customers and not have it hurt your bottom line."

Levy estimates that about 9,000 jobs are in jeopardy and more than 1,000 salons are at risk of being forced to close their doors. The tax also targets middle-class and female business owners, with about two-thirds of tanning salons in the U.S. owned by women, he said.

But hey, as the President assured us MANY times, ObamaCare was necessary to create jobs and repair our economy...

Read the rest...

Government Causing High Unemployment Rates

I've made this argument before, but here it is again. The federal government has extended unemployment benefits to 99 weeks... almost two years. I've argued that if you subsidize something then you get more of it, and therefore the extended unemployment benefits are making the unemployment problem worse.

It looks like I may well have been right... as unemployment rates stay fairly steady at a high level, the nation's "unfilled jobs" percentage is rising.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528201

Normally the job vacancy rate goes down after a recession, as the job market stabilizes. But January, the latest reported month, showed an 11% spike in unfilled jobs. Vacancies are now at 2.1% — the highest since February 2009, the Labor Department says.

That means people are not taking jobs as expected at this point in the recovery. Why? Because many don't have to — thanks in part to 99 weeks and counting of unemployment benefits.

Add to that record food stamp payments and other welfare, and the unemployed have been perversely incentivized to keep holding out for better jobs, rather than take less-than-desirable or lower-paying ones. Forty percent of jobless Americans have been out of work for at least 27 weeks — the highest level since the government began keeping records in the 1940s.

"Those programs subsidize unemployment," University of Chicago economist Robert Shimer says. "There could be good reasons to do it, but we should be clear on the cost. It has a pretty substantial impact."

And this means that the unemployment rates are as much as 1.5% HIGHER than they should be, entirely due to government's extending and increasing unemployment and welfare benefits.

And isn't THAT a great big kick in the pants?

Read the rest...

New Slogan For Democrats

I stand before you today to offer a new slogan for Democrats on the national stage. This is a slogan that fits them perfectly, whether they are willing to admit it or not.

"Power corrupts, and absolute power is really kinda neat."

I say this because it embodies what PresBo and his liberal cronies in Congress have done to us since he was elected... less than two years ago.


They have bailed out banks and controlled what they can and cannot pay their employees. They have ownership of a major automobile manufacturer (GM). They now have government oversight and control of our health care and 1/6th of the US economy. They continue to try and pass "cap & trade" legislation that would cause great economic harm to this entire nation. And they've completely taken over the student loan business.

This doesn't sound to me like they acknowledge any limits at all on their power.

"Absolute power is really kinda neat."

This is what we're dealing with, people, and it's a real danger.

Read the rest...

Poll: Should Alabama Pass Homebrew Bill?

SB153 has already passed the Senate, and would allow Alabama residents to make their own beer and wine for their own consumption. Should Alabama pass this law?




Let us know what you think.


Read the rest...

Homebrew Bill Stalled In House

If you'll recall, a while back I told you that SB153, the bill that legalizes the home production of beer and wine, passed the Alabama Senate on February 23rd.
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2010/02/senate-passes-homebrew-bill.html

On February 25th it was sent to the House, who directed it to the House Travel & Tourism committee... where is has sat ever since. Ignored.

All the bill does is change Alabama law so that it is the same as federal law has been for decades. Federal law and state laws in most other states allow the home production of beer and wine, so Alabama wouldn't be breaking any new ground. In fact, we'd merely be catching up to the rest of the country.

The plain fact is that home production of beer an wine is simple, easy, and safe. I have known people in Florida, where it is legal, who have produced wine and beer at least as good as anything you can buy in a store, and at a fraction of the cost.


It's a hobby, and it can also be an economic boon for the state. The legislation allows for festivals, competitions, and gatherings for those who make beer and wine. The only limitation is that the alcohol can't be sold, which is reasonable.

If you think that this bill would be a reasonable change to state law, I urge you to contact the House Tourism & Travel committee and ask them to pass the bill out of committee with an approval recommendation. You can find the contact information for committee members online at:
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/house/housecommittees.html#Anchor-TOURIS-47940

John Morrow is the chairman of the committee, James Thomas is the vice-chair, and Mac Gipson is the ranking minority member.

I urge you to call. The bill in question, SB153, increases our freedoms and individual liberties, and could easily create increased economic activity within the state of Alabama. We only have nine legislative days remaining (eight, after today), so call as soon as possible.

UPDATE: I spoke with the clerk for the Tourism & Travel committee this morning, and I got a little more information. Apparently they discussed the bill on March 3rd, and one or two members had questions about one or two provisions that might impact the ABC. Those concerns are being "worked on," but at the time the committee members seemed to be in favor of the bill.

Read the rest...

Airport Screener "Ogles" Woman Using Full-Body Scanner

Remember last December when these full-body scanners started being placed in airports around the world? I, and many others, warned that the potential abuse for such an intrusive devise was huge, and that it WOULD BE abused.

We were ignored.

That was a mere three months ago, and already the first RECORDED instance of an airport screener using the machine to ogle women has come to light.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62N1T020100324

A security worker at London's Heathrow Airport has received a police warning and faces disciplinary action over claims he ogled a female colleague using a full-body scanner, officials said on Wednesday.

The 25-year-old worker made lewd comments after his colleague Jo Margetson, 29, mistakenly strayed into the scanner, which can see through clothes to produce an image of the body, the Sun newspaper reported.

Details of the incident at Heathrow's Terminal 5 on March 10 emerged on the day lawmakers said concerns that the scanners were intrusive had been overblown.

"For every official caught ogling like this, there are plenty more eyeing up law-abiding travelers," Alex Deane, director of the Big Brother Watch campaign group, told the Sun.

So there you go, just as we warned you. Those full-body scanners are being used as a voyeuristic enabling device by people who like looking under the clothing of other people.

And it's wrong.

Read the rest...

Breaking: Majority Want GOP To Keep Fighting ObamaCare

CBS has released a new poll that shows the majority of Americans want the GOP to keep fighting against ObamaCare. The poll shows that only 33% disagree, with 62% wanting the fight to continue... even 41% of DEMOCRATS want them to keep fighting against ObamaCare.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001117-503544.html

"The poll finds that 62 percent want Congressional Republicans to keep challenging the bill, while 33 percent say they should not do so. Nearly nine in ten Republicans and two in three independents want the GOP to keep challenging. Even 41 percent of Democrats support continued challenges."

This is a VERY early sign that the liberally extreme Democrats just MAY have miscalculated public opinion... dramatically.

Read the rest...

Whoops! ObamaCare Does NOT Cover Kids Immediately

Ever since the passage on Sunday, we've been hearing delirious Democrats talking about the "immediate benefits" that people will enjoy because of ObamaCare. One of the major benefits has been that kids can no longer be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

Except the law doesn't say that. Whoops.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Gap-in-health-care-laws-apf-4272209396.html?x=0&.v=1

Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.

Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.

However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now. For example, if a child has asthma, the insurance company cannot write a policy that excludes that condition from coverage. The new safeguard will be in place later this year.

Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.

Obama's public statements have conveyed the impression that the new protections for kids were more sweeping and straightforward.

PresBo and company have done more than IMPLY it, they've outright SAID it.

"Starting this year, thousands of uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions will be able to purchase health insurance, some for the very first time. Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions."

And if you listen to the news coverage, they're STILL SAYING IT!

Even though it's not true.

So now it comes out that even DEMOCRATS have no idea what is really in the bill! I guess Pelosi was right when she said we'd have to wait until it was passed to find out what was really in the bill... not that anybody should be happy about THAT.

Read the rest...

Is Individual Mandate In ObamaCare Constitutional?

The requirement that everybody purchase health insurance or pay a fine is the portion of ObamaCare most vulnerable to Constitutional challenge. It is also an essential part of the bill, because without all those extra customers sharing the cost burden, health insurance companies would go out of business trying to meet all the requirements in the new law.

So the question becomes, is the mandate legal? I've been arguing for months that no, the individual mandate is NOT legal, in that it exceeds the power of Congress granted to it by the US Constitution. If they can force us to buy health insurance, then they can force us to buy anything they think we should own. The idea that this is covered under the interstate commerce clause is ludicrous... the fact that the federal government regulates milk prices doesn't mean they can pass a law requiring us to purchase milk.

There ARE limits to the powers of Congress, and the individual mandate exceeds those limits.


Here is a good article on this subject from Reason... I recommend you read the full piece.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/24/dont-buy-it

Unlike growing wheat or marijuana, the decision not to buy medical insurance does not produce anything, let alone a commodity traded between states. Maybe so, say ObamaCare’s defenders, but that decision has an impact on the demand for insurance and on the health care market (one-sixth of the economy!), which the federal government is trying to control in the same way that it tries to control the marijuana trade (with similar prospects of success).

This sort of reasoning leaves nothing beyond the reach of Congress, since anything you do (or don't do) can be said to affect interstate commerce. In its 1995 decision overturning a federal ban on possessing guns near schools, the Supreme Court cautioned against the temptation "to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States." That kind of analysis, the Court warned, threatens to "obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local."

In a recent Heritage Foundation paper, Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett and two co-authors note that the decision upholding wheat quotas does not mean "Congress can require every American to buy boxes of Shredded Wheat cereal on the grounds that, by not buying wheat cereal, non-consumers were adversely affecting the regulated wheat market." Likewise, federal regulation of carmakers does not mean "Congress could constitutionally require every American to buy a new Chevy Impala every year."

Yet this is the logic of the health insurance mandate, an unprecedented attempt to punish people for the offense of living in the United States without buying something the federal government thinks they should have. Don't buy it.

My objections to the individual mandate are three-fold. First, because federal law prohibits us from purchasing health insurance across state lines, then it is NOT INTERSTATE commerce and therefore cannot be regulated by Congress under the interstate commerce clause. Second, even if it WERE regulatable by Congress, NOT buying health insurance isn't commerce of any sort, and therefore purchase of it cannot be mandated. Third, if Congress can mandate the purchase of health insurance, then they can mandate the purchase of any product they think we should own... such as a GM car or low-fat food.

I do not know what the US Supreme Court will eventually decide, but I DO know that if they rule the individual mandate legal then our country has lost the battle to preserve freedom. And that would be a very bad thing to see.

Read the rest...

ObamaCare: Expand Or Repeal?

Remember when liberals used to say that ObamaCare wasn't a "takeover" of the health care system? And when we responded that liberals would expand it to a fully socialized medicine program, they responded scornfully.

Now we know the truth. On the same day that PresBo signed ObamaCare into law, liberal forces in the Senate announced plans to introduce a bill to implement a "public option..." which several Democrats (Obama, Pelosi, Barney Frank) have acknowledged is a good way to move slowly into a single-payer system. Otherwise know as government-run health care.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/88371-liberal-caucus-leader-will-introduce-new-public-option-bill

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), the co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said she plans to unveil legislation to add the government-run option to the national healthcare exchange established by legislation President Barack Obama is to sign tomorrow.

"We will introduce a robust public option bill on the very day the president signs the reconciliation bill into law," Woolsey said Monday during an interview on MSNBC.

On the other side of the ledger, Rep Bauchmann has already introduced a bill to repeal ObamaCare.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-agenda-ahead_N.htm

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., Monday introduced a bill to repeal the just-passed health care legislation. Other Republicans promise to seek repeal of parts of it if they regain control of Congress in November.

So the President hasn't even signed the dumb thing yet, and already the fight is on to expand or kill it. Given the current makeup of Congress and their demonstrated willingness to ignore public opinion and the good of the nation in order to advance their radical liberal agenda, I think expansion is far more likely.

In fact, if the liberals aren't stripped of their overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress this fall, I predict we'll have a single-payer system before the current ObamaCare law is fully implemented.

And trust me, that's a bad thing.

Read the rest...

Is our MEDICAL CARE System That Bad?

Central to this entire reform effort has been the supposition that our "health care system" is broken. But the health care system is actually composed of two parts: health insurance and medical care. Most of the rhetoric on point has been aimed against the problems with our health insurance system.

Which begs the question, how is our MEDICAL CARE system doing?

Critics will tell you that our system is NOT the best in the world. They will cite as "proof" the "fact" that life expectancy in the US is lower than that in countries with socialized medicine, such as England and Canada. And on the surface, they have a point. Life expectancy in the US is 75.3 years, lower than the average life expectancy in Canada (77.3 years), France (76.6), or any other Western European nation except Portugal.

However, would you agree that other factors BESIDES medical treatment also affect life expectancy? Of course. And when you factor out deaths from accident and injury, life expectancy in the United States EXCEEDS that of any Western European nation.


And if you want to judge our system on how well we treat those who are sick, then let's do that. Here are some survival rates on various forms of cancer.

Lukemia: 50% (US) - 35% (Europe)
Esophageal carcinoma: 12% (US) - 6% (Europe)
Prostate cancer: 81.2% (US) - 61.7% (France) - 44.3% (UK)

Yes, it's expensive, but a lot of that comes from the fact that we demand high levels of treatment... and we get it.

I recommend you read this piece on health care systems, written from the perspective of a Canadian doctor who for most of his life supported Canada's socialized system of medicine.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

But such initiatives would push the United States further down the path to a government-run system and make things much, much worse. True, government bureaucrats would be able to cut costs—but only by shrinking access to health care, as in Canada, and engendering a Canadian-style nightmare of overflowing emergency rooms and yearlong waits for treatment. America is right to seek a model for delivering good health care at good prices, but we should be looking not to Canada, but close to home—in the other four-fifths or so of our economy. From telecommunications to retail, deregulation and market competition have driven prices down and quality and productivity up. Health care is long overdue for the same prescription.

The US system of medical care is the best in the world... or it WAS until last Sunday. The future isn't so clear...

Read the rest...

Health Care Freedom Act Needs Your Help!

SB233, otherwise known as the Health Care Freedom Act, is stuck in the Alabama Senate and needs your help. It passed out of the Senate Health committee with a favorable recommendation, but Senator Lowell Barron refuses to schedule it for a vote before the entire Senate. The special order calendar came out last night, and SB233 wasn't on it.

Yesterday, I asked you to contact Barron and your Senator to ask that the bill be voted on. This call was going out on several Internet and talk radio outlets, and thousands of people across the state responded. The result was a surprised Senate majority being deluged with calls on a subject they were hoping to bury.


They've heard the message, but aren't quite ready to do it, so keep up the effort. Call your Senator and Lowell Barron (contact information here) and ask them to let SB233 come up for a vote in the Senate. The bill has support, it's just a matter of putting it on the calendar.

Don't let up now, you're efforts are making a difference. If YOU would like to see a state constitutional amendment that protects our rights NOT to take part in a socialist healthcare system, then you need to contact your the Senate TODAY and ask them to vote on SB233.

Read the rest...

What Does The UK Think Of ObamaCare?

The UK has had "single-payer" (otherwise known as socialized medicine) for quite a while. So what do they think of ObamaCare? Not much, actually.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100030793/a-dark-day-for-freedom-in-america/

The passage last night of Barack Obama’s health care reform bill through the House of Representatives is yet another blow to freedom in America inflicted by the Obama administration. The legislation, which comes at a staggering cost of $940 billion, will hugely add to the already towering national debt, now at over $12 trillion. It is yet another millstone round the necks of the American people, already faced with the highest levels of unemployment in a generation.

It is also a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers. It has also been rushed through Congress without proper scrutiny, in the face of overwhelming public opposition, and with not an ounce of bipartisan support.

Above all the health care bill is a thinly disguised vanity project for a president who is committed to transforming the United States from the world’s most successful large-scale free enterprise economy, to a highly interventionist society with a massive role for centralized government. The United States has thrived as a nation for over 230 years precisely because of its love for freedom and its belief in free markets.

What we have just witnessed is a massive slap in the face for limited government and the principle of individual responsibility. Its net result will be the erosion of freedom in America, and a further undermining of the country’s economic competitiveness. This may be a political victory for the president and his supporters in Congress, but it is in reality a defeat for America as a great power, and another Obama-led step towards US decline.

Even the BRITS think this was a mistake for us!
Read the rest...

Join Politics Alabama on Twitter!

You can now find Politics Alabama on Twitter. Use the widget on the sidebar to view the most recent tweets and/or follow PoliticsAlabama on Twitter.


Read the rest...

Acorn: Out Of Business!

Acorn is going out of business, reportedly because they're going bankrupt from all the negative publicity they've received over the past year or so.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0310/Acorn_folds.html?showall

The ACORN Association Board met on Sunday March 21 and approved a set of steps to responsibly manage the process of bringing its operations to a close over the coming months. These include:

* Closing ACORN’s remaining state affiliates and field offices by April 1st; and
* Developing a plan to resolve all outstanding debts, obligations and other issues.

Now, keep in mind that this is only the national organization. Acorn was pretty decentralized, so many local chapters could well survive the breakup.

However, at least the national group is gone... one more embarrassment down the drain.


Read the rest...

Health Care Amendment Stalled In Legislature

Two bills were introduced into the Legislature back in February, both of which are constitutional amendments to prohibit any program that mandates we buy insurance or won't let us purchase private health insurance. The House bill, HB498, is stalled in the House Health Committee. The Senate Bill (SB233) passed out of the Senate Health committee with a favorable recommendation, but has not yet been scheduled for a third reading and a vote.

There is some conjecture that the Senate majority may be trying to perpetrate a trick that makes it LOOK like they support the bill when they really don't. You see, if a bill is passed in the Senate after a certain point (I believe that point is the 26th day of the session), then it requires a unanimous vote to send it to the House. So the conjecture is that they plan to hold the bill until that point, pass it, and have a "safe" Senator object. That kills the bill.

It's time to put some pressure on the Senate to put the bill up for a vote. SB233 has already passed the Senate Health committee with a pass recommendation, and it has been languishing since February 2nd. Urge them to let the bill come to a vote.

The person who puts bills on the Senate calendar is Senator Lowell Barron. Contact information, readily available on his legislative web page, is below:


State House:
Room 729-B
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
(334) 242-7858

Business:
P.O. Box 65
Fyffe, AL 35971
(256) 623-2298

Home: P.O. Box 65
Fyffe, AL 35971
(256) 623-2811

You also might want to contact Speaker of the House Seth Hammet and your local legislator. The House switchboard number is 334-353-1046.

UPDATE: It seems that SB233 went into and out of the Rules Committee today. It can now be placed on the calendar... if the Democrats in charge choose to do so. Call them now.

Read the rest...

Should We Expedite Constitutional Review?

So what do you think? Should we create a new method to expedite the constitutional review of new laws? (For a presentation of the argument in favor, look "below the fold.")







I would like to see a change to the way we do things now. Currently, in order to challenge the constitutionality of a law, you first have to "have standing," which essentially means you have to be harmed by the law or break it. And it takes YEARS for these suits to travel through the legal system to their final resolution.

But the laws most needing constitutional challenge are new laws, so I'd like to see a new procedure established to expedite constitutional review of new laws by the Supreme Court. ObamaCare is a case in point, where several aspects of the law are questionable in a constitutional context, and those questions should be resolved before the law is put in place and implemented. Our current system allows the passage and implementation of unconstitutional laws for YEARS, if not decades.

We need some way to quickly resolve constitutional questions about newly passed laws.

Read the rest...

Alabama To Challenge Legality Of ObamaCare

Alabama Attorney General Troy King has announced that Alabama will join with 11 other states to challenge the constitutionality of ObamaCare in court.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aJpCMPuIgICA

Twelve states plan to challenge the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul passed yesterday by the U.S. House, according to statements made today.

The states that say they will sue are Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington.

“With this law, the federal government will force citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce,” he said in a press release. “We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person -- by definition -- is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate.”

And Troy King says he also believes the law is unconstitutional.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/03/alabama_attorney_general_troy_4.html

King told The Associated Press he is concerned the health care bill that the U.S. House approved tramples "state sovereignty" by requiring people to have health insurance and by taxing people for not having insurance.

He said his office is in position to move on the issue once President Barack Obama signs the bill into law.

And those won't be the only lawsuits pending, once the President signs the bill into law.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=130621

Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, agreed, telling WND among the primary questions that need to be resolved is whether the government can mandate citizens to purchase or obtain health insurance by federal fiat.

"It is a dangerous precedent," he said.

Such thinking logically could be expected to affect other decisions: If the government opposes a product on any grounds, can it be forbidden? Or conversely, if the government likes a product, can it be required?

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund also were on top of a related situation, moving forward in four different lawsuits to ensure that conscience protections – the right to decide a procedure is objectionable and to not perform it – is maintained for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and others.

And according to Liberty Counsel, "The threat to liberty posed by the health-care bill goes beyond health care. If Congress can get away with this expansive power grab, then individual liberty and state sovereignty will vanish.

So the legal challenges will start shortly after the bill is signed into law, and there will be a LOT of lawsuits.

This brings up something that I'd like to see, a change to the way we do things now. Currently, in order to challenge the constitutionality of a law, you first have to "have standing," which essentially means you have to be harmed by the law or break it. And it takes YEARS for these suits to travel through the legal system to their final resolution.

But the laws most needing constitutional challenge are new laws, so I'd like to see a new procedure established to expedite constitutional review of new laws by the Supreme Court. ObamaCare is a case in point, where several aspects of the law are questionable in a constitutional context, and those questions should be resolved before the law is put in place and implemented. Our current system allows the passage and implementation of unconstitutional laws for YEARS, if not decades.

We need some way to quickly resolve constitutional questions about newly passed laws.

The legal challenges will go forward, and I wish them luck. But any resolution will be a long time coming. Shouldn't we try for something better?

Read the rest...