Medicare Actuary Doubts ObamaCare Benefits

I find this interesting. The medicare actuary responsible for long-term projections says that ObamaCare will fail to deliver two key promises: It will NOT keep health care costs down, and many people will NOT be able to keep the coverage they have.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/26/medicare-actuary-doubts-health-care-law-hold-costs/

Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled, Medicare's independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday.

The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.

Not much to be added to that. Left for you to determine for yourself is this: Did Obama and company know these promises were false and lie to us, or were they deluded by their ideology into believing their own rhetoric?




Read the rest...

Breaking: Judge Throws Out ALL Of Obamacare!

A decision in the Florida challenge to ObamaCare was expected today, and a decision today we got. A Federal judge in Florida ruled today that not only is the individual mandate unconstitutional, but also that since the mandate was not severable, then the entire ObamaCare act is void.

If you'd like to read the entire decision, you may do so here:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_vin.html

The following excerpt is from the conclusion of judge Roger Vinson's ruling:

The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.

For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications.

In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court’s current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that.

For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each DENIED.

In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional.

This is an excellent ruling that is already being blasted by those on the left.


Read the rest...

ObamaCare Endangering Child-Only Policies

One of the major promises of ObamaCare was that children could not be denied coverage due to pre-existing illnesses. Once that provision went into effect, many insurers began looking long and hard at their child-only policies... and some even began dropping them.

That's right, one major effect of ObamaCare has been that health insurers in 34 states have stopped offering child-only policies for sale.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48299.html

Health insurers in 34 states have stopped selling child-only insurance policies as a result of the health reform law, and the market continues to destablize.

According to a survey of state insurance departments by Republican Senate committee staff and obtained by POLITICO, states that have seen carriers exit the market include those that have been ardent supporters of the health reform law, like California and Oregon. Twenty states now have no insurers offering child-only policies.

Yes, children can still be covered under their parents' policies, but gone in many places is the option to take out a policy on your child or children alone. Of those 34 states, fully 20 of them now have no insurers offering child-only policies.

Instead of having more options for health insurance, we now have fewer.

Thanks, ObamaCare. This is what happens when politicians legislate for the purposes of achieving ideological goals, and against the will of the people.


Read the rest...

ObamaCare: The Savings That Aren't

Welcome to ObamaCare Monday. Today, all articles (barring important breaking news) will focus in one way or another on ObamaCare.

Last week, HHS director Kathleen Sebelius released a report showing that ObamCare is "already working," and that health insurance premiums will be reduced by 2014. For those that care to read her report, you may find it here:
http://www.healthcare.gov/center/reports/premiums01282011a.pdf

Let's look at the contents of this report. HHS claims that in 2014, health insurance premiums will be lower. This is incorrect. Premiums will be just as high as today, if not higher. But because the subsidies will be in effect at that time, specific families will pay less. Make no mistake, the full premium will still be paid, only the lion's share will be paid by all of us NOT receiving subsidies. That's right, the rest will be paid with our tax dollars.

It's interesting to note that the "reduced costs" tend to match the subsidy amounts that will be offered by our government.

HHS Directer Sebelius can't seem to distinguish between health insurance premium rate reductions and government subsidies... and that's a pretty large failing.


The problem here is that premiums will NOT become more affordable, costs will NOT decrease. The only thing that will change is who picks up the tab. This is NOT a reduction in health insurance premiums, not by any stretch of the imagination. But the government is so desperate to show some good effects that they're willing to lie to us all in order to make us believe the flash behind the hype.

If anything, this report indicates that government spending on health care will INCREASE in 2014 as they begin paying health insurance subsidies. If some consumers will be paying less for insurance, due entirely to government subsidies, government itself will have to spend quite a bit more in order to make things work.

Ladies and gentlemen, the cost of insurance is based in large part upon how much that health care COSTS. Keep in mind that there is a real-world cost for every medical test and procedure, and the cost of insurance reflects that real-world cost. Subsidizing health insurance premiums does absolutely NOTHING to reduce the cost of receiving those health care services.

So take this "report" with a rather large grain of salt, and understand the reality that ObamaCare will unleash upon us all.

Read the rest...

Apologies For Absence

I want to apologize for the low blogging volume this week. Events are conspiring against me. I've got a short deadline at work, and yesterday we put on our one and only performance of "Coloreds of the Confederacy," a story of slaves serving in the Confederate army during the Civil War. We performed it at the Davis Theater before a fairly decent-sized crowd of high-school students, and they seemed to enjoy it.

Today will also be light, as I have a few doctor appointments. Nothing to worry about, just routine maintenance. Gotta haul this old junker in for my 100,000 mile checkup, don't you know. (grin)

I'll try to get back into it a bit more tomorrow and next week. Thanks for understanding, people.


Read the rest...

GOP Objects To ObamaCare Waivers

Democrats are perplexed by this, but it's not that difficult. The GOP is objecting to HHS issuing ObamaCare "waivers" to a growing list of businesses. The waivers mean that they don't have to comply with many provisions of the new ObamaCare law.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48003.html

Without calling out business directly, Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming attacked a series of “special Washington waivers” that helped preserve so-called “mini-med” plans — health insurance with very narrow benefits that mainly enroll low-wage and temporary workers.

“While the administration is forcing most Americans to accept the new law, over one and a half million Americans now get a free pass,” said Barrasso, who is one of the doctors in Congress. “These people have been given special Washington waivers. Many of these waivers have gone to labor unions who supported the law in the first place, but now don’t want to live under it.”

And they're right. Look, Democrats passed a comprehensive overhaul of our entire health care system, telling us it would reduce the cost of health insurance AND medical care. They said it was good for the entire country. But they NOW believe that if these waivers weren't issued, then it would be a "disaster."

Barrasso is right: Some of the waivers have gone to health plans offered by labor unions, like the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund. But most of them went to restaurants and other businesses with low-wage workers, as well as insurers like CIGNA that offer these kinds of limited-benefit plans.

The administration granted the waivers, which free the “mini-med” plans from new rules that keep health insurers from limiting their annual benefits too much, to keep companies like McDonald?s from cutting off health coverage for their low-wage workers. If they had done that, as some businesses were threatening, the White House would have been blamed for people losing their health insurance because of the law.

That would have been a political disaster, even though many Democrats and consumer groups weren’t happy about the waivers.

Now, WHY would it have been a political disaster? Because it would have shown the entire nation how flawed their "comprehensive reform" was. So they issued the waivers.

In other words, the only way to maintain the fiction that ObamaCare doesn't harm many people is to exempt those people from complying with the new law. And why? So the Democrats don't suffer an even worse political defeat in 2012.

Now, hands up, everyone who thinks that laws should be passed and exemptions granted because of the political benefit such actions would generate to one party or another. Anybody? Yeah, me neither.

The law is a bad one. The fact that these waivers are necessary to keep approximately 15 million people from losing their insurance should tell you that. ObamaCare mandates a "one-size-fits-all" health care system, and the real world just doesn't work that way.

HHS should refrain from issuing ObamaCare compliance waivers, so that Americans can get a TRUE picture of what life will be like under the Democrats' new health care law. Using waivers to fool us into believing the law works well SHOULD BE illegal.

Read the rest...

Breaking: Hawaii Can't Find Obama's Birth Certificate!

Okay, let me start by saying that I'm not a birther. I talk about the issue sometimes, but I've never been one to advocate the position that Obama isn't a natural-born citizen. So imagine my surprise this morning to read a news article telling me that Hawaii can't find Obama's long-form birth certificate!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348916/Hawaii-governor-says-Obamas-birth-record-exists-produce-it.html

Pressure was mounting on Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie today amid increasing confusion over whether President Obama was born there.

Abercrombie said on Tuesday that an investigation had unearthed papers proving Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.

He told Honolulu's Star-Advertiser: 'It actually exists in the archives, written down,' he said.

But it became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate.

And in the same interview Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

He said efforts were still being made to track down definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii.

Wow, huh?


When Abercrombie took office in December, he said that he viewed it as a personal mission to prove to doubters that Obama was a natural-born citizen. He made it clear that he was friends with Obama and that this was personal. So much for objective facts, I guess, eh?

Anyway, NOW he says that he cannot find a birth certificate for Obama, and that it in fact might not actually exist.

Wow.

The birthers have been claiming since the beginning that Obama can't produce a long form birth certificate and, if this report is accurate, it looks like they may have been right all along. If a friend and staunch supporter can't find the certificate, then nobody can.

We may have a Constitutional crisis brewing for real, here.

Wow!

Read the rest...

Thursday ObamaCare News Roundup

There were some interesting articles published recently concerning ObamaCare, and I would like to share those with you.


Majority of states challenge ObamaCare
That's right, the official total is now 28 states challenging the Constitutionality of ObamaCare.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/majority-of-states-for-repeal-too/

It’s now official: 28 states are challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare in the courts. For those of you keeping score, the following six joined the Florida-led lawsuit: Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Wyoming and Maine. Then of course Virginia is pursuing its own suit, and now Oklahoma is about to file its own separate lawsuit based on its voters’ approval in November of a Health Care Freedom Act similar to Virginia’s.

US Doctors fear results of ObamaCare
Most doctors think ObamaCare will result in lower quality health care for patients.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41149280

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. doctors surveyed fear healthcare reform could worsen care for patients, by flooding their offices and hurting income, according to a Thomson Reuters survey released Tuesday.

The survey of more than 2,900 doctors found many predict the legislation will force them to work harder for less money.

"When asked about the quality of healthcare in the U.S. over the next five years, 65 percent of the doctors believed it would deteriorate with only 18 percent predicting it would improve," Thomson Reuters, parent company of Reuters, said in a statement.

200 economists ask Obama to repeal ObamaCare
They think it will be very bad for the nation. Join the club...

As the House prepares debate on the future of the $1 trillion health care overhaul enacted last year, 200 economists have asked members of Congress to repeal the act.

“To promote job growth and help to restore the federal government to fiscal balance, we, the undersigned, feel that it would be beneficial to repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” the economists said in a letter to Congress.

“Too many Americans remain unemployed and the United States faces a daunting budgetary outlook. We believe the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a threat to U.S. businesses and will place a crushing debt burden on future generations of Americans,” they wrote.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/200-economists-ask-lawmakers-repeal-obam

Senate offers olive branch to GOP
Well, that didn't take long. The House votes to repeal ObamaCare, and Senator Reid says he won't even let it come up for a vote in the Senate. Then they offer what they call an "olive branch." And what is it? They think it's enough to get rid of the 1099 provisions that will be killing small businesses this year. The Democrats involved obviously think the repeal was just a campaign gimmick and want to ignore it as quickly as possible. Will the GOP let them?

Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.) and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) wrote to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to offer swift Senate passage for stand-alone legislation to do away with a reporting requirement for businesses.

"Now that you have moved past repeal of the Affordable Care Act, we encourage you to work on efforts to improve the law moving forward," the senators wrote in a letter to Boehner, following a House vote on Wednesday to repeal the entirety of President Obama's healthcare bill.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/139083-senate-dems-offer-olive-branch-to-gop-on-health-reform

Well, that's the lot. I hope you found them informative and entertaining.

Read the rest...

US House Repeals ObamaCare... What Next?

The US House of Representatives voted yesterday to repeal ObamaCare. The vote was 245 to 189, with all Republicans and three Democrats voting in favor of repeal.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41149463/ns/politics-capitol_hill

The Republican-controlled House has voted to repeal the nation's year-old health care law, clearing the way for the second phase of the "repeal and replace" promise that victorious Republicans made to the voters last fall.

The repeal, which was passed by a vote of 245 to 189, has little or no chance of passing the Senate, where Democratic supporters of the law have the majority. And Obama has vowed to veto it if it reaches his desk.

This was a good vote, and, in my opinion, it makes it more likely that the Supreme Court will rule the law unconstitutional. Why do I say this? Well, the law is massively disliked by the public, more than half the states are suing to have it overturned, and now one chamber of Congress has approved its repeal. I'm not saying the justices are slaves to public opinion, but they can hardly be blind to such massive opposition to this law.

Common wisdom is that the repeal bill won't be passed by the Senate. In fact, it won't even be VOTED ON in the Senate. It will be assigned to a committee and rot there, ignored by the Democrats in charge of the Senate. And make no mistake, if the bill gets to a committee, we'll never see it again.

But there is a way to get the bill heard by the Senate. It's called "holding at the desk."


Once the House bill reaches the Senate, it only takes one Senator objecting to the second reading (Rule 14) to have it "held at the desk." This action prevents it from being sent to committee, and puts it on the Senate calendar. Theoretically, majority leader Reid could put it on the calendar at any time, but we know that isn't going to happen. However, any Senator can use Rule 22 to take any bill that is "held at the desk" and open debate on it.

So you see, there IS a way to open debate in the Senate and possibly get a full-Senate vote on the bill. It's up to Republican Senators to take the necessary actions. If they don't, and if the bill hits committee, it's dead until the next election. The Democrats won't allow that bill to surface again, under any circumstances.

For more details on this method, please read this piece by the Heritage Foundation.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/18/how-to-repeal-obamacare-in-the-senate/

Read the rest...

Elected Officials Flunk Constitution Quiz

Newly elected lawmakers take oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution. Would it surprise you to know that most lawmakers have little idea what the Constitution actually says? A recent survey shows that elected officials have LESS of an understanding of the Constitution than does the general public.

In a series of ten questions about the Constitution contained inside a larger survey, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute found that the general public answered 54% of these ten questions correctly, while elected officials only answered 49% of them correctly. Now, most of these ten questions weren't that difficult.

Would you like to see the questions, and maybe take the quiz yourself?


The questions are listed below. Where I know specifically how the two demographic groups (elected officials/general public) answered each question, I will include that data in parenthesis after the question.

1) What are the three branches of government? (49%/50%)
A. executive, legislative, judicial
B. executive, legislative, military
C. bureaucratic, military, industry
D. federal, state, local

2) What part of the government has the power to declare war? (46%/54%)
A. Congress
B. the president
C. the Supreme Court
D. the Joint Chiefs of Staff

3) In the area of United States foreign policy, Congress shares power with the:
A. president
B. Supreme Court
C. state governments
D. United Nations

4) The United States Electoral College: (57%/66%)
A. trains those aspiring for higher political office
B. was established to supervise the first televised presidential debates
C. is otherwise known as the U.S. Congress
D. is a constitutionally mandated assembly that elects the president
E. was ruled undemocratic by the Supreme Court

5) What impact did the Anti-Federalists have on the United States Constitution?
A. their arguments helped lead to the adoption of the Bill of Rights
B. their arguments helped lead to the abolition of the slave trade
C. their influence ensured that the federal government would maintain a standing army
D. their influence ensured that the federal government would have the power to tax

6) The phrase that in America there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state appears in: (15%/19%)
A. George Washington's Farewell Address
B. the Mayflower Compact
C. the Constitution
D. the Declaration of Independence
E. Thomas Jefferson's letters

7) The Bill of Rights explicitly prohibits:
A. prayer in public school
B. discrimination based on race, sex, or religion
C. the ownership of guns by private individuals
D. establishing an official religion for the United States
E. the president from vetoing a line item in a spending bill

8) Identify one right or freedom below guaranteed by the first amendment.
A. Right to bear arms
B. Due process
C. Religion
D. Right to counsel

9) Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government listed below?
A. Make treaties
B. Make zoning laws
C. Maintain prisons
D. Establish standards for doctors and lawyers

10) Who is the commander in chief of the U.S. military?
A. Secretary of the army
B. Secretary of state
C. President
D. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

I'll give the answers in a moment so that you can score yourself. I got all of them right, and a co-worker of mine got nine out of ten.

But before I give you the answers, let me comment a bit. How can elected officials uphold the Constitution if they don't understand it? This is the obvious look of these results. Don't have much faith when your elected officials claim what they are doing is Constitutional, because YOU probably understand the Constitution better than THEY do.

Here's another thought I had, and it's not an encouraging one. People who believe in the Constitution and who understand it are often viewed as wackos. Why? Because the general public only half-understand the document. So those knowledgeable of what the Constitution says are viewed as "extreme" and "fringe."

And this is unlikely to change, because voters don't like to elect "wacko" candidates, so those candidates who understand and will try to uphold the Constitution are unlikely ever to get elected.

This is an entirely depressing survey.

As promised, here are the correct answers for the quiz. How did YOU do?

1) A
2) A
3) A
4) D
5) A
6) E
7) D
8) C
9) A
10) C

Read the rest...

Governor Bentley: Only Christians Are My Brothers

This doesn't bode well for our new Governor's term of office, if you ask me. During yesterday's swearing-in ceremonies, he said some rather peculiar things. Specifically, he said that non-Christians are not his brothers and sisters, and invited them to be saved. That's a peculiar message coming from an elected official who claims he wants to be the Governor for all.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/01/gov-elect_robert_bentley_inten.html

"I was elected as a Republican candidate. But once I became governor ... I became the governor of all the people. I intend to live up to that. I am color blind," Bentley said in a short speech given about an hour after he took the oath of office as governor.

Then Bentley, who for years has been a deacon at First Baptist Church in Tuscaloosa, gave what sounded like an altar call.

"There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit," Bentley said. "But if you have been adopted in God's family like I have, and like you have if you're a Christian and if you're saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister."

Bentley added, "Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."

Well. Do you think that sounds like a man who wants to be the Governor for all people? Yeah, me neither.


In fact, I'll go further. This doesn't sound like a politician at all, it sounds like a preacher. And the LAST thing we need is a preacher in the Governor's manse, using religion as his guiding principle.

I'll be honest with you, if I were NOT a Christian, this message from our new Governor would leave me a bit worried about how non-Christians could expect to be treated by our state government. In fact, I AM a Christian, and it STILL leaves me concerned that those not of my faith are being viewed as less than equal. And that's a problem, at least in THIS country.

What the Governor said was the religions equivalent of "I want to represent everybody, but I wish all you (your-favorite-ethnic-slur-here) would learn to speak better English."

I don't know if anybody else is concerned or upset by Bentley's comments, and frankly, I don't care. I've never been one to hold only opinions that are popular.

What I DO know is that Bentley's comments, coming as they did from the leader of Alabama's state government, were just plain wrong. If he wants to preach, he should go back to church. Using his office to proselytize and denigrate those of other religions, by suggesting they aren't the same as Christians, violates, at the very least, the spirit of the First Amendment.

Bentley is wrong, and he is wrong in a VERY big way... on his very first day as Governor. He needs to not only apologize, but also to get rid of the particular attitude that makes him think things like this are okay.

Shame on you, Mr. Bentley. Shame on you.

Read the rest...

Alabama Has A New Governor

Well, good morning, and welcome to Tuesday... the first full day of newly-sworn-in Robert Bentley's term as Governor. There were lots of events yesterday: balls, gatherings, and the like. If you'd like to read Bentley's inaugural speech, you can find it here. It's short... I promise.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20110117/OPINION07/110117025/Text+of+Bentley+inaugural+address

He also made some interesting statements towards the federal government.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20110117/NEWS/110117026/New+governor+warns+federal+government+

"We will work with the federal government when we can, but they will not dictate our every move," he said to loud applause.

"If nothing else, the 2010 elections told us the people of America are fed up with business as usual. They are tired of partisan politics, and most of them are tired of the federal government," Bentley said.

"As elected representatives we answer to you the people of Alabama, not to politicians and bureaucrats in Washington. I will defend our right to govern ourselves under our own laws and to make our own decisions without federal interference," he said to more loud applause.

Interesting words, probably referring to the ObamaCare system imposed on all the states by an overreaching and incredibly liberally oriented federal government. It will be more interesting to see what, if anything, he does to live UP to those words.

So. Welcome to Day 1.


Read the rest...

Will US Default Without Raising Debt Limit?

The US has reached the $14 trillion debt mark, which means we're nearing the current limit on how much we can borrow. Some Republicans are threatening to vote against raising the limit, while others are saying they'll only vote for the increase if spending cuts are included. In my opinion, don't count on either happening... most Republicans will cheerfully approve raising the amount we can borrow, thus continuing business as usual.

"Common knowledge" says that if we do NOT raise the debt limit so that the country can continue to borrow more money and go deeper into debt, then we will default on our obligations and the resultant chaos will destroy the world's financial stability.

That's a bunch of malarkey. Let's look at it.


What actually happens if Congress decides NOT to raise the debt limit? Essentially, Congress says the government cannot hold an outstanding debt of more than the current limit, which is $14.3 trillion. Once the debt hits that level, no more borrowing can be done. Note that, at this point, default has not occurred. All that has happened is that the US government loses the ability to borrow more money.

Now, defaulting means they can't pay the interest on the debt instruments. By prioritizing payments, the Treasury can still make those payments, while delaying others. In the interim, Congress would have to pass severe spending cuts that would allow the government to operate at a greatly reduced level of spending. Forget the Republicans' much ballyhooed "$100 billion in cuts"... Congress would have to immediately move to slash spending by a trillion dollars or more.

It would be the equivalent of tossing a kid into the deep end of the pool to teach him how to swim. Harsh, but it usually works.

It would be the equivalent of quitting smoking cold turkey, all at once. Debt spending would STOP, in one explosive instant.

Default is not necessary in this scenario, and if it occurred, then it would happen because Congress couldn't get their act together to avoid it. Make no mistake, defaulting on our debt would happen because spending was too high and Congress was too incompetent to adjust spending levels to avoid it.

Let me reiterate at this point, though, that I don't believe this will actually occur. I think the Republicans will roll over and happily approve the debt increase, and we'll continue digging ourselves deeper and deeper into eventual bankruptcy.

But assuming that the average temperatures in the regions of Hell should suddenly drop into arctic ranges, defaulting on the debt would still be avoidable, assuming Congress could actually act effectively. Of course, too many liberals would respond by ignoring spending and instead trying repeatedly to raise the limit, so the result of this idiocy would likely be dire. But it needn't NECESSARILY happen...

Read the rest...

Alabama Inaugural Day Schedule

There are some events planned today, in case you are interested in attending any of the inaugural festivities. Here's a list:

Prayer breakfast at the First Baptist Church at 7:30 am.

Inaugural parade along Dexter Avenue at 9:45 am.

The swearing-in ceremony begins at noon at the state Capitol.

The inaugural celebration begins at 2 pm. It will be held at the baseball stadium.

Kay Ivey, the first Republican woman to serve as Lt. Governor, will have a reception in her state Capitol office from 2-4 pm.

John McMillan (R), the new Agriculture Commissioner, will have a reception from 3-5 pm at the Alabama Cattleman's building near the Capitol.

Then, of course, there's the inaugural ball, which will be held tonight at the Renaissance Hotel & Spa.

So, if you simply MUST get involved in politics today, there are a few opportunities.


Read the rest...

Use Tool To Watch Legislature

Some years ago, the Alabama Legislature unveiled ALISON... an online tool to get information about bills. The interface is clunky, and it's not the easiest thing in the world to use. Here's a better tool that you might find useful.
http://www.openbama.org/

As we head into the regular session in a few months, you might find this site useful.


Read the rest...

Alabama Senate Streaming Video

When the 2011 regular session starts later this year, the Alabama Senate will be conducting a test with video streaming from the Senate chambers. You can find out more information here:
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/video/SenVideoNotification.html

Connections will be limited, I am told, to 25 connections at any time. Though this IS an extremely small number, please keep in mind this is a TEST, an experiment. If it works well, they may offer more connections in the future.


Read the rest...

State Senate Picks Committee Chairs

The Alabama Legislature is meeting in its organizational session, and the Senate has selected the chairmen of the various committees. They are:

Agriculture- Tom Whatley
Banking & Insurance- Slade Blackwell
Business & Labor- Rusty Glover
Children Affairs- Paul Bussman
Commerce- Gerald Allen
Confirmations- Jabo Waggoner
Constitution & Elections- Bryan Taylor
Education Appropriations- Trip Pittman
Education Policy- Dick Brewbaker
Energy- Cam Ward & Ben Brooks
Fiscal Responsibility- Phil Williams
General Fund Appropriations- Arthur Orr
Governmental Affairs- Jimmy Holley
Health- Greg Reed
Job Creation & Economic Development- Paul Sanford
Judiciary- Cam Ward & Ben Brooks
Rules Committee Chair- Scott Beason
Small Business- Shad McGill
Tourism- Clay Scofield
Veterans Affairs- Bill Holtzclaw

That's the list. Enjoy.


Read the rest...

Wednesday Afternoon News Roundup

Here are some news stories I think you'll be interested in.


Did you know that Congress used to be armed... while on the floor of the House and Senate? Several beatings and assaults took place many years ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/opinion/12freeman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

In the rough-and-tumble Congress of the 1830s, 1840s and 1850s, politicians regularly wore weapons on the House and Senate floors, and sometimes used them.

During one 1836 melee in the House, a witness observed representatives with “pistols in hand.” In a committee hearing that same year, one House member became so enraged at the testimony of a witness that he reached for his gun; when the terrified witness refused to return, he was brought before the House on a charge of contempt.

This is a good piece, testing your knowledge of which right-wing radical did or said these... well, very radical things. It might open your eyes a bit...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/right_wing_hate_speech_quiz.html


By now you've heard a lot about Sarah Palin's map with the cross-hairs on it, probably in the context of blaming her for the Tucson shooting. Turns out those aren't cross-hairs at all, but surveyor's marks denoting places of interest.
http://townhall.com/columnists/NealBoortz/2011/01/12/sarah_palins_map/page/full/

Were the symbols on Palin’s map really the crosshairs through a gun sight, as claimed, prior to the shooting, by Congresswoman Giffords herself? Palin’s office says they were not. They claim they were surveyor’s marks. So who’s right?

I wouldn't mind seeing Herman Cain running for President in 2012. Not sure I'd vote for him or not, but he's definitely welcome in the race.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/137519-republicans-could-have-pick-of-unconventional-white-house-candidates-?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Herman Cain, a prominent African-American businessman, has formed a presidential exploratory committee and is considering launching a bid for the GOP nod. Cain, the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza, isn't a household name like some of the other possible contenders, but he's not intimidated by the competition.

Finally, most Americans seem to be thinking straight. Why do I say this? Because a recent poll shows that most Americans believe that ObamaCare will cost more money than they claim it will.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/january_2011/75_think_health_care_law_may_cost_more_than_estimated

Most voters still strongly feel that the health care reform law passed last year by Congress will cost more than projected.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is at least somewhat likely that the health care reform law will cost more than official estimates, with 57% who say it is Very Likely. Eighteen percent (18%) think it’s unlikely that the law will cost more than was estimated prior to its passage, but that includes just three percent (3%) who say it’s Not At All Likely.

That's it for the moment. I hope you found them entertaining and informative.

Read the rest...

A Little Logic On Gun Control, Please

In the wake of the attempted murder of a sitting Congressman by someone who all agree is a raving lunatic, the reactions range from a disgusting attempt to capitalize on murder to advance a political gain to Congressmen panicking and envisioning widespread targeting of lawmakers. And the legislation they want passed helps us see who is disgusting and who is merely afraid.

McCarthy is an opportunist. Gun control advocates seem to love these kinds of events, because they show no hesitation in using them to advance their agenda. McCarthy want to ban large capacity magazines. A useless gesture as it wouldn't have changed a thing. There are MANY such magazines already manufactured and sold... those would be readily available via private sale. Or steal them. Or just carry two guns. Or just get better at reloading quickly.

Rep Robert Brady (D-PA) thinks that this actual shooter isn't REALLY to blame. No, what's really to blame is people talking about "targeting" lawmakers for defeat, or showing maps with croshairs on states to show Democrat seats that can be won by Republicans. That's what caused the shooting, and it MUST stop! So he wants to make it illegal to use that kind of language in reference to lawmakers.


I don't think I've heard anything so ridiculous in quite a long time. That kind of language is ingrained in our culture. Companies run TARGETED ad campaigns so their products appeal to their TARGET demographic groups. Political campaigns have volunteers in the FRONT LINES trying to get votes. Companies run an ad BLITZ to get the word out about a product quickly. You see? The terminology is in wide use, and doesn't mean somebody will get shot.

Brady needs to grow a spine and stop trying to trash the first amendment. Speech advocating violence against somebody is ALREADY punishable. We don't need to make ordinary, non-threatening speech a criminal offense just because Brady has the courage level of a three year old girl.

Another lawmaker wants to put a Plexiglas bulletproof shield over the gallery in the House, so that ordinary people watching a session can't drop bombs or something on lawmakers as they work. Hmm... that has happened precisely ZERO times, so he's trying to implement a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Worried? Tighten up your already tight security for visitors to the House gallery.

But the most illegal of all proposals from one of these scared little girls is to ban guns within 1,000 feet of a lawmaker at one of these meetings. Essentially, it would create a 1,000 "bubble" of theoretically gun-free zone around wherever a Congressman happens to stop to speak to constituents. If I'm not mistaken, and I don't think I am, the courts have already ruled that kind of thing illegal.

I don't have the court case in front of me, but it overturned a similar law years ago that created gun-free "bubbles" around schools. No guns could be possessed within a thousand feet of a school. The problem with it was that the gun-free zones could include people's homes, as well as folks just driving around who didn't even know a school was THERE. These "bubbles" of gun banning were already overturned once.

In this case, the "bubbles" would appear and disappear without warning, and people could be in violation of that law and subject to punishment without having any way of knowing what was happening, or why. A person pulled over for speeding a block away could be arrested for violating the newly appeared gun-free "bubble", whether the driver knew the Congressmen was going to be there or not.

This is clearly illegal. A law isn't reasonable if we don't have a prayer of knowing when we are and are not in violation of it. Any attempt to pass such a law is a panicked overreaction that wouldn't help, either.

I mean, seriously, does he really think that Loughner, or some other maniac, would actually OBEY such a law? How are you going to enforce it, strip search everybody in the "zone" once the Congressman stops? Since Loughner shot a bunch of people and is facing six counts of murder, I don't think an additional charge of "carrying a gun in a gun-free bubble" would have proved much of a deterrence... and it certainly wouldn't add much to his sentence.

You must keep in mind that laws NEVER stop crimes, they just give society the ability to punish those who commit crimes. And the shooter's actions are already illegal under existing laws

Here's my advice to lawmakers: Stop trying to write or propose laws right away. There is no urgency to pass laws, as this shooting wasn't part of an organized effort... he was a lone madman. Take the time, study what happened, and use sober reflection to determine what, if anything, might have made a difference. If any proposal wouldn't have stopped the shooting, then abandon it. Otherwise, we'll end up with a series of stupid and possibly illegal laws that were passed as a panic reaction to a one-time event... though a tragic one.

UPDATE: Here's an article on the gun-free bubbles I talked about.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/137221-king-announces-legislation-for-tighter-gun-restrictions-at-events-with-federal-officials

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee wants to ban people from carrying weapons within 1,000 feet of federal officials at public events.

Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) said he would propose a bill in the coming weeks that would ban the carrying of guns within that range for the president, vice president, members of Congress and federal judges.

Read the rest...

GOP Looking Shaky On Debt Reduction

John Stossel has a good piece today about our debt crisis and how we will, or will not, address it. First, realize that, as bad as our debt situation is, we CAN get out of it.
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2011/01/12/same_as_the_old_boss

Are we doomed? Not necessarily. Economist David R. Henderson points out that our neighbors to the north faced a similar crisis. In 1994, the debt that Canada owed to investors was 67 percent of GDP. Today, it's less than 30 percent.

What did Canada do? It cut spending from 17.5 percent of GDP to 11.3 percent.

This wasn't merely a cut in the growth of spending, a favorite trick of congressional committees. These were actual reductions in absolute spending.

"If a cabinet minister wanted a smaller cut in one program, he had to come up with a bigger cut in another program," writes Henderson in "Canada's Budget Triumph," published by the Mercatus Center. All but one of Canada's 22 federal departments experienced real cuts in spending. While Canada raised taxes slightly, spending was cut six to seven times more.

These supposedly painful cuts didn't cause terrible pain. In fact, there was much more gain than pain. Unemployment dropped, the economy boomed, and the Canadian dollar -- then worth about 71 cents U.S. -- today is about equal to the American dollar.
If Canada can do it, we can, too.

As you can see, it's possible to enact drastic spending cuts without destroying the economy. Yes, I know what the liberals in Congress and in the media say, but it's a lie. Smaller government budgets, with their attendant lower taxes and lower borrowing, are GOOD for the economy!

So we CAN get out of this. WILL we?

But the signs aren't good. New Speaker John Boehner, leader of the Republicans who now control the House, says he wants to cut spending. When he was sworn in last week, he declared: "Our spending has caught up with us. ... No longer can we kick the can down the road."

But when NBC anchorman Brian Williams asked him to name a program "we could do without," he said, "I don't think I have one off the top of my head."

Give me a break! You mean to tell me the Republican leader in the House doesn't already know what he wants to cut? I don't know which is worse -- that he doesn't have a list or that he won't talk about it in public.

I've been saying this for quite a while. Those of you who are expecting the new GOP majority in the House to be different from the old are probably going to be severely disappointed. They don't WANT to reduce spending... that reduces their own power, too.

So, where's the new third party we desperately need?

Read the rest...

Gun Control "Solution" Filed Shortly

Well, US Representative McCarthy has her bill nearly ready. You remember, the gun control bill she's filing in order to "strike while the iron is hot." That's what gun control activists call it... I call it dancing in the victims' blood, but hey, I'm not a member of the elected aristocracy.

Her bill would ban high-capacity magazines... no word yet on what would constitute "high-capacity." The only guidance we have is that the 30 round magazine used by the murderer in Tucson would have been banned.
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/10/5805421-mccarthy-lautenberg-seek-to-ban-high-capacity-ammo-magazines

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., with the backing of gun control groups, are drafting a bill that would ban the sale of high-capacity magazines such as the one that was used allegedly Saturday by Jared Lee Loughner, the man accused of murdering federal Judge John Roll and trying to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., according to two gun control activists working with McCarthy's staff.

"In the wake of these kind of incidents, the trick is to move quickly," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, one of the gun control groups working with McCarthy's office.

Yes, that's the strategy. Move quickly, ignore the victims and the real essence of the tragedy in order to exploit the situation to achieve a political goal. I'm hoping, here, that everyone else sees how cynical and self-serving that kind of attitude is... not to mention repulsive and ghoulish.


Read the rest...

Breaking: Tuesday's Rally At Capital CANCELLED

I wrote earlier about a "Welcome Back" rally to be held in front of the State building tomorrow, to let the incoming Legislature know that we are watching. This rally has been canceled due to inclement weather.

Message from Rainy Day Patriots to all members of Alabama State Legislative Watch Team on Rainy Day Patriots!

Due to weather conditions the Alabama Legislative Watchdog Group's event to meet the Alabama Legislature on Tuesday, January 11 has been cancelled. The letter from the Alabama Legislative Watchdog Group to be delivered to the Legislators should be mailed this week to your individual Congressman. The letter outlines what actions the Alabama Legislative Watchdogs, as a team of the Rainy Day Patriots, feel should be addressed during the 2011 Regular Session. We will re-schedule the event at a later time, please stay posted via our website and Face Book pages, links below. Thanks for your support, The Team at Alabama Legislative Watchdogs
www.rainydaypatriots.org
Alabama Legislative Watchdogs (face book id)

Visit Alabama State Legislative Watch Team at:
http://www.rainydaypatriots.org/groups/group/show?id=4133738%3AGroup%3A12217&xg_source=msg_mes_group

Read the rest...

Confidence Falling With Bad Unemployment Report

By now you've heard that the unemployment rate dropped to 9.4% from November's 9.8%. I'm pretty sure you've heard about it, because Obama and his political apologists have been trumpeting the news from the rooftops. We're told the economy is getting better. The fact that the unemployment rate dropped only because a few hundred thousand people decided it was hopeless and stopped looking for work... well, that doesn't seem to matter to folks who are desperately looking for good news on the economy to bolster their political fortunes.

To Obama and liberal Democrats, it seems it's fine to lower the unemployment rate by turning once-productive workers into unemployed wards of the state, living off welfare and despair.

Personally, I'd rather see the rate go down the GOOD way... by having the economy recover sufficiently for employers to begin expanding again. This won't happen as long as taxes are uncertain and regulations on businesses are tightened. In other words, it won't happen while Obama and the Democrats are in charge.

The news from the unemployment numbers wasn't good, no matter what happened to the "unemployment rate." How can it be good news when hundreds of thousands of people give up trying to find work? Doesn't sound like our jobs picture is bouncing back to me.

And the consumer confidence numbers reflect that.


In the wake of December's unemployment report, the consumer confidence level has dropped.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/indexes/rasmussen_consumer_index/rasmussen_consumer_index

Following a disappointing report on job creation, consumer and investor confidence has fallen significantly over the weekend.

The Rasmussen Consumer Index, which measures the economic confidence of consumers on a daily basis, has fallen seven points since Friday morning to 86.2. The Rasmussen Investor Index fell even more sharply, dropping 14 points since Friday to 94.1.

The Rasmussen Consumer Index and Investor Indexes are derived from nightly telephone surveys and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result today’s update is the first based entirely upon interviews conducted since Friday’s official report on unemployment and job creation.

Today, just 33% of consumers believe the economy is getting better while 43% believe it is getting worse. On Friday, just before the jobs report, 38% said better and 38% said worse.

So the Democrats' attempt to turn a bad report into a good one doesn't seem to be working too well... and that's good news.

The only way to turn our jobs picture around is to give us stability. Congress needs to stop spending so much money, stop trying to raise taxes, and STOP writing more and more regulations that cost businesses time and money. If the rabidly liberal Congressmen can bring themselves to do that, if they can cater to reality instead of their own twisted (and inaccurate) world view, then we can recover. If not... Well, hopefully the voters will speak on that issue again in two years, if it becomes necessary.

Read the rest...

Democrats Politicize Tucson Shooting ALREADY!

As you no doubt know by now, someone opened fire inside a Safeway in Tucson, Arizona, killing six people and wounding 14 others. Among the dead was a Federal Judge, and US Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was shot in the head. Though still on the critical list, Rep Giffords is reported to be in stable condition and responding to simple commands from doctors. The bullet passed through her brain, but the total extent of the damage is unknown.

My prayers go out to all who were injured or who lost loved ones in the attack.

Unfortunately, that's not all I have to say on this matter. This is not of my own choice, but in response to the words and actions of others in the wake of this terrible event.

You see, the smoke had barely stopped curling from the barrel of the murder weapon before gun control activists were screaming for new gun control laws. Personally, I think that kind of a reaction is sick. What sort of person hears about a mass shooting and immediately starts to calculate how they can wring political gain from it? Sick people.


But that didn't stop them. One major gun control activist, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) has already announced that she hopes to introduce a new gun control package into Congress as early as Monday morning. Talk about a sick person trying to use tragedy for personal gain.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html

One of the fiercest gun-control advocates in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson Sunday, promising to introduce legislation as soon as Monday.

“My staff is working on looking at the different legislation fixes that we might be able to do and we might be able to introduce as early as tomorrow,” McCarthy told POLITICO in a Sunday afternoon phone interview.

Gun control activists cried it was time to reform weapons laws in the United States, almost immediately after a gunman killed six and injured 14 more, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, in Arizona on Saturday.

So gun control is the thing that McCarthy wants most to accomplish, and she uses the attempted murder of one of her colleagues to advance her goal.

Left unspoken are the details of this bill. Would the provisions of it have stopped this attack? Even if it is aimed at restricting the legal purchase of guns to those with a history of mental disability, even if the murderer had been unable to legally purchase a gun from a gun store, there are just too many other ways and places for him to have gotten a gun illegally.

Laws against gun ownership will not stop criminals and murderers from obtaining guns. I mean, when they're intending to break such a major law as murder, not to mention the sixth commandment, violating a few gun control laws probably wouldn't bother them too much.

I find it disgusting and politically predatory for people such as McCarthy to capitalize on murder and attempted murder in order to advance their own political agenda. I know that that is virtually the mantra for Obama politics these days ("Never let a crisis go to waste..."), but this is a particularly disgusting usage.

Here is my advice. Take time to mourn for the slain and heal the injured. Take time to capture the murderer, build a case against him, and sentence him to death. Take time to carefully and logically consider an appropriate legislative response before writing and introducing legislation.

To act this quickly, lost in the heat of the moment and in the rush of their own political convictions, is to dishonor those who were injured or killed. Which matters more, the victims of this crime or the political advantage that can be wrung from it?

I pray that the person or persons responsible for this act are apprehended and punished... preferably put to death in accordance with the law. I pray that those who were wounded (and their families) find healing, and the families of those who were killed find solace. And I pray that those who see nothing but political advantage in death and destruction have the wisdom and restraint to remember that there are more important things than their political ideology.

Read the rest...

Poor, Underpaid Presidential Spokesman

I don't know if you caught this, but in saying goodbye to his Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs, PresBo actually had the nerve to call his $172,200 a year salary "modest." These were his exact words:

He’s had a six-year stretch now where basically he’s been going 24/7 with relatively modest pay. I think it’s natural for someone like Robert to want to step back for a second to reflect, retool and that, as a consequence, brings about both challenges and opportunities for the White House.

I won't comment on whether or not his job has been as hectic as PresBo says... I have no reason to doubt it. But to call $172,200 a year a "modest salary" is ridiculous. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't PresBo claim that any person earning $200,000 or more is "rich?" How can we go from a "modest salary" to "filthy rich" in just $27,800?

There's a logical disconnect, there.

But you see, to PresBo, surrounded by people who are worth millions, that $172,000 probably does look pretty modest. It's a sense of entitlement that they have. Since, after all, they are serving our nation by running it, they deserve all the perks they can wring out of a grateful peasantry. The politicians are, at least in their own view, America's version of royalty. And for royalty, is $172,200 really that much?

Personally, this is an attitude that has to GO. Those working for the government should not be making more money than 92% of Americans... as did Gibbs.


Read the rest...

Constitutional Shenanigans In Congress

Yesterday was an interesting day, folks, from a Constitutional perspective.

First, the GOP sponsored a reading of the US Constitution in the House, the first that has ever been done. Well, most of it, anyway. They didn't read passages that were later amended, such as the infamous "three-fifths of a person" passage. That's defensible... but not the next part.

You see, they skipped an entire section of the Constitution. They were taking turns reading sections of it, and when Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) finished his section, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) omitted reading Article 4, Section 4 and skipped straight to Article 5. Nadler finished reading normally, at the end of a sentence, and nobody, not even Fortenberry himself, noticed that he started reading in the MIDDLE of a sentence.

This is a clear signal that nobody was paying much attention to the reading. Think about it... NOBODY in the entire chamber realized something was wrong? NOBODY? That means they weren't paying attention. So the whole reading was a PR stunt, and will have no real effect on our US Representatives.

Of course, that was minor league compared to the NEXT mishap.


You see, two Republican Representatives were not in the chamber when they were sworn in, though there is videotape of them watching the swearing-in on TV, and raising their hands and taking the oath. The problem is that they have to be IN the chamber for it to count.

Normally, there would be no problem. They realize the error, get sworn in properly, and no harm, no foul. HOWEVER. Before they were properly sworn in, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) both took part in votes on the House floor and in committee.

See, that's a problem. We can't have just anybody sitting in and casting votes. At the time this happened, they were NOT US REPRESENTATIVES, because they had not been sworn in. That means all of their actions are null and void.

Big problem.

Personally, I think the only solution is to cancel out any business in which they took part, and do it over again. Have to, in my opinion.

The House is planning on fixing this by passing a resolution that removes their votes, officially, from the tally. No, that won't change the outcome, but that's hardly the point, here.

I think this is inadequate. Why? Because Congressmen are sheep, oft-times casting their vote based upon the position of the others. A vote in favor, for example, may be withheld and the member votes against... assuming his party is carrying the day and he needs to score political points with his constituents with a symbolic vote. So it is POSSIBLE that the mere fact these two voted might have affected someone's thinking.

See, that's why it's important not to make these kinds of bone-headed mistakes in the first place.

And I have to tell you, these two mistakes don't exactly fill me with confidence. I mean, they can't even read the Constitution and get sworn in without messing things up, and we're going to trust them to manage our NATION?

As I said, this doesn't fill me with confidence.

Read the rest...

Something Fishy: Unemployment Rate 9.4%

I read the unemployment report, and to be honest, it sounds more than a little fishy to me. Unemployment has been holding steady for quite a while, ranging between 9.5% and 9.9% for the past year. In November, the unemployment rate was 9.8%. If it actually DID fall 0.4% in a single month, that would be an amazing rate of job growth... all things considered.

But this is fishy, because something doesn't add up. We know that we need to create 125,000 new jobs a month just to keep the unemployment rate where it is, in order to compensate for an expanding job market as new people begin looking for work. So, if the unemployment rate FELL 0.4%, that means we must have added, what... 500,000 jobs in December! Wow, this is impressive... half a million new jobs in December???

Wait, no. Only 103,000 new jobs were reported in December. Huh. So, if we added fewer jobs than needed to keep the unemployment rate stable, how did we see such a massive drop in the unemployment rate?


Here's my answer... I don't know.

Look, read the jobless report for yourself. You don't have to read far in order to reach your first inconsistency. Here, I'll quote the portions that bear on this question.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The unemployment rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 9.4 percent in December, and nonfarm payroll employment increased by 103,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

The number of unemployed persons decreased by 556,000 to 14.5 million in December, and the unemployment rate dropped to 9.4 percent.

Among the marginally attached, there were 1.3 million discouraged workers in December, an increase of 389,000 from December 2009. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.3 million persons marginally attached to the labor force had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.

How can we add 100k jobs but have the number of unemployed people drop by half a million?

The normal way this kind of thing happens is that the size of the workforce, the number of people out of a job and trying to find work, actually dropped. The normal way this happens is that, over time, people become "discouraged" and stop looking for work. Once that happens, once they stop looking for work, they are no longer considered part of the workforce, and that number decreases.

But look at the last paragraph. It says the number of discouraged workers was 1.3 million, and you'll find that the SAME number of discouraged workers as shown in the NOVEMBER report. So that hasn't changed.

So that's the dilemma... Where did those 500,000 workers GO?

And my answer is simple: I don't know. I'm sure we'll see analysis shortly explaining this, but right now, from my own reading of the data, I just don't know.

And BECAUSE I don't know, I have to wonder if this drastic reduction in the unemployment rate is politically motivated. An invention. A lie.

While it IS possible that the revised November numbers explain things, I'm leery of accepting that blindly. I would like somebody in charge to explain to all of us how the number of discouraged workers can remain the same as the previous month, but we nevertheless lose 500,000 from the workforce.

It is my opinion that something is wrong, here. We're missing SOMETHING. If not, then we're being lied to.

Read the rest...

"Welcome Back Legislature" Rally

As you know, the newly GOP-dominated Legislature meets in a few months, but they are laying their plans now. So, the Wetumpka Tea Party group is organizing a "Welcome Back" rally for the legislature. To remind them we're here, and we expect certain things from them. To remind them we expect adult behavior and respect for us voters.

Tuesday, January 11th
11:30 AM until 1:00 PM
Alabama State House steps
11 Union Street
Montgomery, Alabama

As our elected Senators and Representatives return, to do the work of the people, this Welcome Back Rally is your chance to be a visible reminder to each of them that We The People are engaged and watching. The Rainy Day Patriots of Birmingham have formed a team called the Alabama Legislative Watchdogs and have invited TEA Party groups and other Alabama patriots to attend this rally. Together we will represent a group of citizens that are WATCHING what happens in the Legislature and will be holding our elected officials accountable and expecting them to be responsive to our voices.

This is an opportunity to meet your Senators and Representatives and discuss any issues you feel are important. You made a difference in November and it is now important that each of us stay involved and continue to make our voices heard.

WTP members will gather at 11:30, on the State House steps, and can then go as individuals or as groups to the various offices of our elected officials to briefly meet with them, introuduce ourselves and discuss issues of concern. To connect with other WTP members please gather near the street, on the steps leading down from the sidewalk, in front of the main entrance.

PLEASE...make an effort to attend. You ARE needed.

For questions, please call Loretta, Wetumpka TEA Party at 334-514-7612

or click here to go to the Alabama Legislative Watchdog page on Facebook.

Read the rest...

Pelosi Lies, Reid Believes Strange Things

As the new Congress is seated, a couple of strange things happened yesterday. First, let's deal with what Reid said.

Addressing the new Senate, Reid actually had the audacity to claim that Americans love government! I think that, if a national poll were taken, we'd find something completely different. Anyway, here's Reid in his own words.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu9YKTbRFzg

If there is anything more odious than Reid's claim that we love government but hate the politics that go with it, it's Pelosi's bald-faced lie about her tenure as Speaker.


In her press conference after he tenure as Speaker ended, she bragged about her party's commitment to reducing the deficit. To be precise, she said: "Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra, pay-as-you-go."




If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkF3Bf_ZtK0


Did you catch that? She is claiming that the Democrats actually made progress on deficit reduction. Look, I wrote a bit about this the other day, but the national debt actually increased a staggering $5.2 TRILLION while the Democrats were in charge. How can she claim they dealt with our yearly deficit when they racked up more than a trillion dollars a year in new debt?

Pelosi stood up there and uttered an easily verifiable falsehood... and at the same time served as an excellent example of why we shouldn't let politicians have so much power over our lives. Given the level of dignity and honor she displayed (none), it makes a good argument against trusting such people with great powers over us, doesn't it?

Read the rest...

ObamaCare: Another Bad Effect

ObamaCare is a spectacularly bad law, for many reasons. The topic de jour, however, is physician-owned hospitals. The new law doesn't force physician-owned hospitals to close, but it would obviously have liked to. What it DOES do is two major things. First, no new physician-owned hospitals may be opened. Second, and more to the point, any existing physician-owned hospitals are barred, as of the first of this year, from expanding at all.

What effect has this had? Apparently, construction has stopped at 45 physician-owned hospitals around the country. They WERE expanding, which would mean more patients could be treated, and quite probably treated better. But because of the new law, because of ObamaCare, the construction crews working on the expansions are out of work. Because of ObamaCare, 45 hospitals are forbidden to expand and grow, which means patients will receive less care.
http://www.heartland.org/full/29036/PhysicianOwned_Hospitals_Fire_Back_at_Obamacare_Restrictions.html

Section 6001 of the health care law effectively bans new physician-owned hospitals (POHs) from starting up, and it keeps existing ones from expanding. It has already halted the development of 24 new physician-owned hospitals and forced an additional 47 to struggle to meet the deadline to complete construction, according to the Physician Hospitals of America (PHA).

And in addition to the hospital expansions that ObamaCare halted, 24 new hospitals will now not open. Tough luck, patients.

In order to understand WHY Democrats did anything so monumentally stupid, you have to understand their mindset. Doctors are greedy and unscrupulous, so of course any doctor-owned hospital is the enemy of good care. So they did as much as they could to get rid of them.

How can ANYBODY defend this monstrosity of a law?


Read the rest...

HHS Paying Google To Hype ObamaCare

If you don't like ObamaCare, how do you like the fact that your money is being used to make it look better? You know that Google sells search terms, so that those paying for the terms come out on top, right? Well, HHS paid Google with taxpayer dollars for a large collection of search terms (almost anything with the word "ObamaCare" in it), so that the first link people will see is the HHS propaganda website.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1210/HHS_buys_ObamaCare.html

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has bought a Google advertisement to steer people searching for "ObamaCare" to a page that is customized to detect searchers' locations and steer them both to local health insurance information and to a list of "what's in the law for you."

The ad buy represents a kind of recognition that the Administration has, to a degree, lost a battle over defining its terms, and that "ObamaCare" -- coined and used largely by detractors of the plan -- is in wide circulation. A search for the term on Google yields 2.5 million results.

Yet another example of the government spending our money to try and convince us we like a program that we really, REALLY don't.


Read the rest...

The Passing Of The Gavel

Did you watch the ceremonial passing of the gavel from former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner? Here's video of that event.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://tinyurl.com/33ej95a

Want to see a different shot of that?


We aim to please.




If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6sNlO1eVFU&feature=player_embedded


Just thought you might be interested.

Read the rest...

Obama Wants To Ingore, Bypass Congress

Okay, here's the situation. During last year's lame-duck session, Congress approved a measure limiting what prisoner transfers Obama can do from Gitmo. That was passed as an amendment to a defense spending bill that was passed and is soon to be signed by PresBo. Specifically, the new law-to-be would do the following:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/us/politics/23gitmo.html

One of its provisions bans using its funds to transfer into the United States any Guantánamo detainee this fiscal year — even for the purpose of prosecution.

A second provision bans the purchase or construction of any facility inside the United States for housing detainees now being held at Guantánamo.

A third provision forbids the transfer of any detainee to another country unless Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates signs off on the safety of doing so.

PresBo doesn't like these provisions, because it makes his vow of closing Gitmo harder to keep. But he's unlikely to veto the defense spending bill, and he doesn't have the power to use a line-item veto, so what's a rabid statist like Obama to do?

Why, that's simple. He is toying with the idea of signing the bill, but claiming that his executive powers allows him to ignore this new law and do whatever he wants to do.


Think I'm kidding?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/us/politics/04gitmo.html?_r=1

But the administration is also considering whether he should go further by issuing a signing statement — a formal document recording a president’s interpretation of a new law for the rest of the executive branch to follow — asserting that he has the constitutional power to disregard the restrictions.

Under the latter approach, the president would assert that as the head of the executive branch and commander in chief, his prosecutorial discretion and wartime powers would allow him to lawfully bring detainees into the United States for trial or to transfer them to other countries as he sees fit.

It remained unclear whether the administration would actually carry out a detainee transfer despite the restrictions, or whether it would merely assert, as an abstract matter, that Mr. Obama had the authority to do so.

In other words, Congress can lawfully pass any law they wish, but PresBo wants to be able to ignore them when it's convenient for him.

Either he's doing it to be symbolic, to make a point, or he's doing it because he thinks he can get away with it. Look, Congress unquestionably has the authority to do this, and there is nothing that PresBo can legally do about it. Tough.

But PresBo isn't used to taking no for an answer, so he wants to simply ignore what they say.

Sounds about right, but is that REALLY what we want in a President? Do we REALLY want a President who is willing to ignore Congress and the Constitution whenever he wants to?

I can't answer for you, of course... but I certainly don't want such a President.

Read the rest...

Why I'll Never Vote For Romney

I know we just finished a mid-term election, and I know the 2012 Presidential elections are almost two full years away, but I feel the need to comment on it now. Why? Because GOP big-names are already positioning themselves to be the presidential candidate in 2012, and an early front-runner for the spot has already surfaced. His name is Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts and the father of RomneyCare.

After four years of an Obama Presidency, we will feel the need for a President who will lead this nation along a path to fiscal sanity once again. In the four years since Pelosi and Reid took control of Congress, the last two of which were under Obama's direct supervision, they managed to increase our national debt by $5.2 TRILLION. If the pace doesn't slacken, and if the liberals in DC had their way, that number will have grown to a staggering $7.8 trillion... virtually doubling our national debt in six short years.

Obama has also engaged in a massive bureaucratization of America. He's taken control of banks, auto companies (he even took ownership of one company), and our entire health care system. No good solution can come from the private sector, according to him, and so every "solution" has been coming from the government. The size and scope of the Federal government has grown dramatically, and Obama is poised to use more Executive power to bypass or even circumvent Congress. Case in point would be his consideration of using a "signing statement" to nullify the Gitmo restrictions Congress included in a lame-duck spending bill, thus ignoring a Congressionally passed law merely because he wants to.

After all of that, we don't only want, we absolutely NEED someone who believes the exact opposite of what Obama believes. We need a man who believes the private sector is our greatest strength. We need a man who believes that government is too big and costs too damn much. We need a man who is willing to reduce his own power and that of Congress for the good of this nation.

And that man is NOT Mitt Romney.


Mitt Romney may talk a good game now, but his past accomplishments tell a very different story. If there is anything that is fair to be used as an example, wouldn't that be what Romney himself views as his signature achievement, the jewel in his crown? I think so, too.

So let's look at the Massachusetts health care system that predated ObamaCare. Mitt Romney spear-headed the effort to "reform" the Massachusetts health care system, and he signed the legislation in 2006. It was this health care program, nicknamed RomneyCare, that was used by liberals in DC as the blueprint for ObamaCare. Romney's plan for the health care overhaul was to force people to buy insurance or pay a fine, require companies to offer insurance or pay a fine, require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and sell insurance to all comers, and to force taxpayers to foot the bill if anybody couldn't afford insurance after all that.

Sound familiar? It should, because ObamaCare was definitely modeled after it. How can we support a politician who essentially implemented ObamaCare in his state as a candidate for President? If these are his political bona-fides, he's running in the wrong political party.

RomneyCare is already in deep trouble, which probably doesn't auger well for ObamaCare... And our nation.

Although Massachusetts has only a 3% uninsured rate, the rate of subsidy is almost twice as high as predicted. Insurance rates, predictably, are skyrocketing, and insurers have stopped offering unprofitable plans for sale. And though the uninsured rate is low, that doesn't mean people are getting needed health care. Most of the general practitioners in Massachusetts aren't accepting new patients... there is far more demand than they can fill. Of those lucky few who DO find a doctor to treat them, waiting lists are long... up to 44 days by one estimate.

So where do all those patients go? They go to emergency rooms, of course, thus further clogging an already clogged system.

All of this followed because Mitt Romney, the man who would be the "conservative" President to follow liberal Obama, decided that government regulations could fix the problems in the Massachusetts health care system. Government is good, the private sector is bad.

Romney's private beliefs appear to blend pretty well with Obama's, don't they?

So why, exactly, should we believe we'll have a smaller, less expensive, and Constitutionally aware government under Mitt Romney? I'm sorry, but I'm just not that gullible.

If Romney wins and becomes our next President, it will be without my vote and over my strenuous objections.

What about you?

Read the rest...

National Debt: The Latest Word

Well, here we are in 2011, with the new Congress starting work, and one of the subjects being talked about is the national debt. Personally, I don't think either party has a stellar reputation for dealing with the national debt, but we'd be stupid to listen to the Democrats on this subject. Why?

When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, our national debt was $8.67 trillion... a large sum, to be sure. After four years of Democrat control of Congress and two years of Obama, our national debt now stands at a mind-numbing $13.87 trillion. That means that Pelosi, Reid, and Obama have racked up $5.2 trillion in debt in just over four years.

I'm sorry, but the party fully responsible for increasing our debt by 60% in four short years has zero credibility when it comes to getting spending under control and paying down the debt.

Right?


But there's more. The GOP has been talking about fiscal responsibility and the national debt ever since the November election, and now that they're actually in office a big test will be that very debt. You see, Congress will face a vote sometime this year on whether or not to increase the nation's debt limit. If they don't do so, they'll either face immediate financial disaster or have to drastically cut spending to keep spending within limits of our tax revenue. If they DO vote to increase the debt limit, they'll lose at least some credibility with their new-found passion for fiscal restraint.

So it's going to be a tough vote for them to take. Personally, I think that the more they increase the debt limit, the less likely they are to get the budget under control. If the GOP bows to the "we must go deeper into debt" argument, they surrender their pledge of fiscal responsibility.

I don't know how practical that is, but I believe it's the harsh reality.

Read the rest...

I'm Out For Another Day

I have been sick for the past week or so, and it's hanging on. Woke up this morning dizzy and been coughing my fool head off for days. I'm staying home today, and hopefully will feel good enough to get back to it tomorrow.

My apologies...


Read the rest...