Sir, you did the best you could, but now it's time to step aside and give someone else a shot. Your colleagues chose you as Senate minority leader because you know the arcane rules of the US Senate backwards and forwards. Your skill set would be helpful and possibly decisive if the republican caucus consisted of 43 or even 42 members. However, you only have forty votes, two of which, Sens. Snowe and Collins of Maine love to play footsie with the democrats. In short, you never had a shot. Look, any Pats' fan can tell you having a coach who knows the x's and o's better than anyone(Belichick)doesn't mean bupkiss if you don't have players able to execute the game plan. Senate majority leader Harry Reid is as likely to be confused with LBJ as Chad Henne is with Peyton Manning, but against an undermanned squad they'll get the job done just the same. Besides, Harry Reid hasn't been shy about opening the peoples' checkbook and buying votes when necessary.
Now that Harry Reid has sixty votes in his pocket it's time for a new game plan and a new minority leader. To say the way Reid went about getting those votes was seedy would be too kind. But arguing that the process was corrupt is a losing hand. We need a leader that can communicate to the vast majority of Americans that don't pay attention to the day to day machinations of the Senate. These folks will tune in to talk of "cloture" and "arbitrary timelines" for as long as it takes me to change the channel on a Australian rules football game(match). It's not that they don't know what's happening in D.C. will impact their lives; it's that they don't know the rules and never will in a political world ruled by thirty second sound bites. For example, pointing out that the Senate Parliamentarian is a shill for Harry Reid and probably would have let him get anything he wanted out of the Senate via reconciliation if that proved necessary makes about as much sense to your average American as a Christmas card written in sanskrit.
It's time to storm the barricades,(figurativley speaking Sec. Napolitano and Sen. "Big Sheldon" Whitehouse) and for that we need passion. Sen. McConnell, I say this as one charisma challenged guy to another, you could recite Henry V's St. Crispins Day speech word for word and still find yourself storming the walls all alone. An obvious replacement for republican standard bearer doesn't leap out, but we need to try. Maybe there is a diamond in the rough amongst your thirty nine cohorts. I do know, that a rhetorical bomb, "death panels" lobbed by Sarah Palin on her Facebook page caused the previous arbitrary deadlines of August and Thanksgiving to go by the wayside. This legislation provides plenty of opportunities for potential bunker-busters, but we need a leader willing to throw them:
1) The mandates, including provisions for imprisoning Americans that don't comply.
2) Medicaid exploding state budgets' except Nebraska of course and the massive property tax increases this will entail.
3) The potential bankrupting and closure of 20% of our nations' hospitals.
etc...
The American people are the only thing standing in the way of this bill's passage. We need leadership that will give them the information they need to fight it.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Nelson Folds
FREE Sign Up! Community Events Front Page What is Red Hampshire Why Red Hampshire Matters Nelson Folds
December 19, 2009Paul Breau
From the Washington Post:
“Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), the final Democratic holdout on health care, was prepared to announce to his caucus Saturday morning that he would support the Senate reform bill, clearing the way for final passage by Christmas.
“We’re there,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), as he headed into a special meeting to announce the deal.
Democratic leaders spent days trying to hammer out a deal with Nelson, and worked late Friday night with Nelson on abortion coverage language that had proved the major stumbling block. But Nelson also secured other favors for his home state.
Asked if he was prepared to support the bill, Nelson said, “Yeah.”".
Harry Reid gave Nelson his 30 pieces of silver and he folded like a cheap suit.
The 2010 election is now officially nationalized. Every Republican needs to run on repealing this monstrosity. The benefit of the Dems playing the CBO score to hide the true cost of the bill is that spending doesn’t kick in until 2014. Once Americans get a “free” ie..someone else is footing the bill service, it’s impossible to repeal.
December 19, 2009Paul Breau
From the Washington Post:
“Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), the final Democratic holdout on health care, was prepared to announce to his caucus Saturday morning that he would support the Senate reform bill, clearing the way for final passage by Christmas.
“We’re there,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), as he headed into a special meeting to announce the deal.
Democratic leaders spent days trying to hammer out a deal with Nelson, and worked late Friday night with Nelson on abortion coverage language that had proved the major stumbling block. But Nelson also secured other favors for his home state.
Asked if he was prepared to support the bill, Nelson said, “Yeah.”".
Harry Reid gave Nelson his 30 pieces of silver and he folded like a cheap suit.
The 2010 election is now officially nationalized. Every Republican needs to run on repealing this monstrosity. The benefit of the Dems playing the CBO score to hide the true cost of the bill is that spending doesn’t kick in until 2014. Once Americans get a “free” ie..someone else is footing the bill service, it’s impossible to repeal.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Obamacare: Harmful To Children
Years ago when the Simpsons was still funny they had a recurring bit where a concerned citizen would plead "Won't somebody please think of the children?". Today I ask is there not one member of the Senate with a D after their name that will stand up for the children of America? While Harry Reid is busy trying to concoct a bill behind closed doors that can get 60 votes by his artificial Christmas deadline. One thing remains clear. If the eventual bill resembles all the others that have seen the light of day it will have a terrible impact on children.
For starters, the employer mandates will hit small businesses very hard and will lead to yet more layoffs. This legislation makes it too expensive for small business, the growth engine of our economy to maintain current employment levels let alone expand their operations. There are millions of jobs at stake, both in potential layoffs and new jobs that won't be created. Any child whose parent loses a job or can't find one because of this bill is worse off for its passage.
This legislation will cause health insurance rates to increase, not decrease as promised. For those Americans that receive their health coverage through their employer they will be hit with higher premiums and see any wage gains swallowed in icreased medical costs paid by their employers. For those whose employers decide to drop medical coverage altogether, they and their families can look forward to a future on Medicaid. Families shunted onto Medicaid could lose their doctors. One third of physicians don't accept Medicaid because of its way below market reimbursement rates. If losing their family doctor isn't bad enough they will be forced onto a plan, Medicaid, that already has trillions of dollars of liabilities in the coming years that it doesn't have the funds to pay for. This is the equivalent of piling children onto the Titanic just before it slips beneath the waves.
If the substandard health care received under Medicaid isn't bad enough, this legislation will also impact childrens' education. Governor Bredesen (D-TN):"described the options in the event of a Medicaid expansion as putting one's state "into bankruptcy" or its education system "in the tank.". Medicaid is a joint Federal/State program so any increase in the number of people on the program means higher bills for state governments'. Because most if not all states' require balanced budgets this will mean increased taxes and spending cuts. Simply put, expanding Medicaid means a decrease in funding for schools and local aid by cash strapped state governments'.
Finally, the last bill we had a CBO score for came in at a budget busting 2.5 trillion dollar ten year pricetag. When you add this spending on top of the yearly trillion dollar plus deficits the Obama administration is already projecting as far as the eye can see, it's not hard to see the fiscal trainwreak that awaits America's children. Their future will be one of extortionary tax levels coupled with anemic growth. This legislation will end the American dream of every generation being better off than the one before it. The debts that are being run up today must be paid and it's immoral to saddle future generations with misery for a pyrrhic health care reform victory.
The question of the moment remains whether Senator Nelson (D-NE) holds his ground or caves to the pressure being exerted by President Obama. It's truly sad, considering what's at stake that Nelson seems to be all alone on his side of the aisle. Let's hope he stays strong, if not for us, for the sake of the children.
For starters, the employer mandates will hit small businesses very hard and will lead to yet more layoffs. This legislation makes it too expensive for small business, the growth engine of our economy to maintain current employment levels let alone expand their operations. There are millions of jobs at stake, both in potential layoffs and new jobs that won't be created. Any child whose parent loses a job or can't find one because of this bill is worse off for its passage.
This legislation will cause health insurance rates to increase, not decrease as promised. For those Americans that receive their health coverage through their employer they will be hit with higher premiums and see any wage gains swallowed in icreased medical costs paid by their employers. For those whose employers decide to drop medical coverage altogether, they and their families can look forward to a future on Medicaid. Families shunted onto Medicaid could lose their doctors. One third of physicians don't accept Medicaid because of its way below market reimbursement rates. If losing their family doctor isn't bad enough they will be forced onto a plan, Medicaid, that already has trillions of dollars of liabilities in the coming years that it doesn't have the funds to pay for. This is the equivalent of piling children onto the Titanic just before it slips beneath the waves.
If the substandard health care received under Medicaid isn't bad enough, this legislation will also impact childrens' education. Governor Bredesen (D-TN):"described the options in the event of a Medicaid expansion as putting one's state "into bankruptcy" or its education system "in the tank.". Medicaid is a joint Federal/State program so any increase in the number of people on the program means higher bills for state governments'. Because most if not all states' require balanced budgets this will mean increased taxes and spending cuts. Simply put, expanding Medicaid means a decrease in funding for schools and local aid by cash strapped state governments'.
Finally, the last bill we had a CBO score for came in at a budget busting 2.5 trillion dollar ten year pricetag. When you add this spending on top of the yearly trillion dollar plus deficits the Obama administration is already projecting as far as the eye can see, it's not hard to see the fiscal trainwreak that awaits America's children. Their future will be one of extortionary tax levels coupled with anemic growth. This legislation will end the American dream of every generation being better off than the one before it. The debts that are being run up today must be paid and it's immoral to saddle future generations with misery for a pyrrhic health care reform victory.
The question of the moment remains whether Senator Nelson (D-NE) holds his ground or caves to the pressure being exerted by President Obama. It's truly sad, considering what's at stake that Nelson seems to be all alone on his side of the aisle. Let's hope he stays strong, if not for us, for the sake of the children.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Humble Leviathan, Before It's Too Late
This last week has produced several stories that demonstrate the growing gap between the citizen and the state that theoretically serves us. While the six million bucks Democratic pollster Mark Penn received from the stimulus bill is hard to swallow, it's just a symptom of a bigger problem. Most shook their heads when Vice President Biden declared that the stimulus exceeded expectations, but it has largely achieved its purpose. It was designed to benefit one constituency, government employees. During the course of this recession 7.3 million Americans in the private sector have lost jobs, over four million of those after the stimulus bill passed, while public employees remain largely unaffected. In fact, the federal government is in the midst of a hiring binge.
USA Today released a story that should be a must read for every American. There, in black and white is evidence that the story of the "haves and have nots" in our country is becoming increasingly dependent on whether one works for the government or as part of the dwindling productive class. The numbers:
"Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted."
"Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.
When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.
The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules."
Federal employees making $100,000 or more have increased by 46%, those making more than $150,000 by 119% and those making $170,000 or more have increased by 93%. All this during a recession. The average salary of a federal employee is now $71,206 while in the private sector it stands at $40,331.
The overall employment figures since the beginning of the recession: federal government jobs have increased by 192,700, a gain of 9.8%, state and municipal jobs saw a smaller increase of 33,000, for a gain of .2%, while as mentioned earlier, the private sector shed 7.3 million jobs, for a loss of 6.3%.
The stimulus bill, even with its massive bailout for profligate state governments', wasn't enough to insulate municipal and state workers from the effects of the recession. To maintain full employment for government employees, MA and many other states saddled their already struggling citizens' with huge tax increases. I won't say unprecedented, because what they are doing is straight from Hoovernomics 101. For the hard-pressed residents of MA, the 25% increase in the sales tax to 6.25% and applying that tax to alcohol has proven insufficient to balance the budget. To remedy this shortfall, they held hearings on Beacon Hill with the goal of raising the gas tax by another 13%.
Adding insult to injury most cities and towns have decided to play pigpile on the taxpayer by raising property taxes. The city of Boston just announced a whopping 6.3%increase. Mayor Menino waited until he was safely re-elected before he shared this little bit of holiday cheer with the residents of Boston.
How is it that when many Americans are suffering, government employees are thriving? Simple. Big unions, both public and private spent a ton of cash electing democrats and that bet has paid huge dividends.The nexus between big government and big union is best represented in the person of Andrew Stern, head honcho of SEIU. He boasts of spending over 60 million dollars of his members' dues to elect President Obama. So, it should come as no surprise that he has been the most frequent visitor to the Obama White House or that his members were deployed as shock troops during the August town halls. I wonder if his purple-shirted goon squad saw any irony in the words "Don't tread on me" written on the Gadsden flags Kenneth Gladney was selling before they beat him senseless.
How can we prevent the big union, big government combination from taxing us into oblivion? We need to use the petition process and the ballot box to stop them in their tracks. It won't be easy, but our forefathers faced much longer odds in their struggles. Their lot required the use of bullets and bloodshed to first gain independence and the freedoms we enjoy and later to prevent disunion and end the abhorrent practice of slavery. How can we call ourselves worthy of their inheritance if we shrink at the first sign of SEIU thugs? I believe our way of life is worth fighting for, even if it means we will be on the receiving end of epithets at best and fists at worst.
Some ideas to achieve the end of preserving constitutional government:
The large sums of money, derived from compulsory dues government employee unions like AFGE, AFSCME and the NEA spend lobbying for ever bigger government should be banned. These sums break the spirit if not the letter of the law of the Hatch Act. Any member of these unions should be free to donate to any candidate or party they choose, as is their right under the first amendment.
The seperate and unequal health and retirement programs of government versus private sector employment should end. All new hires to any government should pay into the social security system and receive their health benefits on the private market. Just like the people they work for. The only exceptions to this rule being members of the US military, members of the intelligence communities and police and firefighters. These are people that put their lives on the line for us every day and their careers do not lend themselves to retirement at the age of 65.
Amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget with an exception for national emergencies. These should be limited to real emergencies like war and natural disasters, not the latest omnibus spending bill only has 936 earmarks in it.
Constitutional amendments on both the federal and state levels setting term limits. Being an elected representative is an honor and a privilege that was never intended by the founders to be a career.
Constitutional amendents on the federal and for states that don't already do this, making legislatures meet for only a part of the year, with provisions for recall by the president or for states, governor, in case of emergency. Legislatures should do the peoples' business and go home. Meeting year-round only leads to mischief ie. they find ways to spend the peoples' hard earned money.
Others can probably come up with a multitude of different and better ideas. This missive is simply meant to get a conversation started. To ensure that our government remains in Lincoln's immortal words from the Gettysburg address "that government of the people, by the people, for the people", and is not replaced by a government of the bureaucrat, by the bureaucrat and for the apparatchik.
USA Today released a story that should be a must read for every American. There, in black and white is evidence that the story of the "haves and have nots" in our country is becoming increasingly dependent on whether one works for the government or as part of the dwindling productive class. The numbers:
"Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted."
"Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.
When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.
The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules."
Federal employees making $100,000 or more have increased by 46%, those making more than $150,000 by 119% and those making $170,000 or more have increased by 93%. All this during a recession. The average salary of a federal employee is now $71,206 while in the private sector it stands at $40,331.
The overall employment figures since the beginning of the recession: federal government jobs have increased by 192,700, a gain of 9.8%, state and municipal jobs saw a smaller increase of 33,000, for a gain of .2%, while as mentioned earlier, the private sector shed 7.3 million jobs, for a loss of 6.3%.
The stimulus bill, even with its massive bailout for profligate state governments', wasn't enough to insulate municipal and state workers from the effects of the recession. To maintain full employment for government employees, MA and many other states saddled their already struggling citizens' with huge tax increases. I won't say unprecedented, because what they are doing is straight from Hoovernomics 101. For the hard-pressed residents of MA, the 25% increase in the sales tax to 6.25% and applying that tax to alcohol has proven insufficient to balance the budget. To remedy this shortfall, they held hearings on Beacon Hill with the goal of raising the gas tax by another 13%.
Adding insult to injury most cities and towns have decided to play pigpile on the taxpayer by raising property taxes. The city of Boston just announced a whopping 6.3%increase. Mayor Menino waited until he was safely re-elected before he shared this little bit of holiday cheer with the residents of Boston.
How is it that when many Americans are suffering, government employees are thriving? Simple. Big unions, both public and private spent a ton of cash electing democrats and that bet has paid huge dividends.The nexus between big government and big union is best represented in the person of Andrew Stern, head honcho of SEIU. He boasts of spending over 60 million dollars of his members' dues to elect President Obama. So, it should come as no surprise that he has been the most frequent visitor to the Obama White House or that his members were deployed as shock troops during the August town halls. I wonder if his purple-shirted goon squad saw any irony in the words "Don't tread on me" written on the Gadsden flags Kenneth Gladney was selling before they beat him senseless.
How can we prevent the big union, big government combination from taxing us into oblivion? We need to use the petition process and the ballot box to stop them in their tracks. It won't be easy, but our forefathers faced much longer odds in their struggles. Their lot required the use of bullets and bloodshed to first gain independence and the freedoms we enjoy and later to prevent disunion and end the abhorrent practice of slavery. How can we call ourselves worthy of their inheritance if we shrink at the first sign of SEIU thugs? I believe our way of life is worth fighting for, even if it means we will be on the receiving end of epithets at best and fists at worst.
Some ideas to achieve the end of preserving constitutional government:
The large sums of money, derived from compulsory dues government employee unions like AFGE, AFSCME and the NEA spend lobbying for ever bigger government should be banned. These sums break the spirit if not the letter of the law of the Hatch Act. Any member of these unions should be free to donate to any candidate or party they choose, as is their right under the first amendment.
The seperate and unequal health and retirement programs of government versus private sector employment should end. All new hires to any government should pay into the social security system and receive their health benefits on the private market. Just like the people they work for. The only exceptions to this rule being members of the US military, members of the intelligence communities and police and firefighters. These are people that put their lives on the line for us every day and their careers do not lend themselves to retirement at the age of 65.
Amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget with an exception for national emergencies. These should be limited to real emergencies like war and natural disasters, not the latest omnibus spending bill only has 936 earmarks in it.
Constitutional amendments on both the federal and state levels setting term limits. Being an elected representative is an honor and a privilege that was never intended by the founders to be a career.
Constitutional amendents on the federal and for states that don't already do this, making legislatures meet for only a part of the year, with provisions for recall by the president or for states, governor, in case of emergency. Legislatures should do the peoples' business and go home. Meeting year-round only leads to mischief ie. they find ways to spend the peoples' hard earned money.
Others can probably come up with a multitude of different and better ideas. This missive is simply meant to get a conversation started. To ensure that our government remains in Lincoln's immortal words from the Gettysburg address "that government of the people, by the people, for the people", and is not replaced by a government of the bureaucrat, by the bureaucrat and for the apparatchik.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Is A Brown Win Possible?
I believe Scott Brown has a chance, albeit a slight one, to shock the political world on January 19th. Call this assessment one part innate republican optimism and one part observations from Ward 2, Newburyport on primary day.
For starters, the lack of intensity by democrats yesterday was simply stunning. MA hasn't had a Senate vacancy since 1984 and turnout was pathetic. What's behind the apathy? One theory expressed to the Daily News "I think it's because people aren't particularly excited about this race. They don't see a big difference in the candidates. They seem pleased with them all," Erickson said." I agree with the first part of this statement and think the second part is dead wrong. There wasn't a dimes worth of difference seperating the 4 democratic candidates on the major issues of this campaign and that's the problem.
If people are excited about a candidate they are going to express it by volunteering or at least showing up to the polls to vote. Yesterday, the only campaign that had folks holding signs was Scott Brown's. Admittedly, it was a bit chilly out there yesterday, but it wasn't unseasonably cold, it is December after all. This lack of excitement is the canary in the coal mine moment for the democrats and they ignore it at their peril.
The US Senate is currently debating legislation on: health care, energy, a potential second (jobs bill) stimulus and a promise/threat of taking up "immigration reform". If enacted these bills will transfer unprecedented power to the Federal government and registered democrats responded to this by staying home. If the majority of democrats in MA were excited by this agenda they would have voted in large numbers. The truth is that this agenda is only popular with the far left of the democratic party, even here in deep blue MA and independents are scared to death by it.
Some completely anecdotal, unscientific examples from yesterday. An independent voter approached me to tell me that he had voted for Scott. He also told me the guy at the desk told him he was requesting the "wrong ballot", just part of the joy of living in MA. Another told me he works for a small plumbing supply company and if the health care bill passes they will be forced to cut their employees from 55 down to 49. They don't want to do this, they simply can't afford to pay the mandates that will be imposed by this legislation.
So, how does all this help Scott? Martha Coakley will be campaigning on issues that only appeal to a small percentage of voters. If Scott Brown and this is a big if, can convince the independens that are a majority of voters in this state to cast a ballot for a republican, probably for the first time in their lives he has a fighting chance.
To give Scott a fighting chance the republicans in the US Senate need to stand up and fight instead of playing nice guy. This election needs to be fought on big issues. The principal one being a victory by Scott Brown denies the democrats 60 votes for the federal takeover of health care.
For starters, the lack of intensity by democrats yesterday was simply stunning. MA hasn't had a Senate vacancy since 1984 and turnout was pathetic. What's behind the apathy? One theory expressed to the Daily News "I think it's because people aren't particularly excited about this race. They don't see a big difference in the candidates. They seem pleased with them all," Erickson said." I agree with the first part of this statement and think the second part is dead wrong. There wasn't a dimes worth of difference seperating the 4 democratic candidates on the major issues of this campaign and that's the problem.
If people are excited about a candidate they are going to express it by volunteering or at least showing up to the polls to vote. Yesterday, the only campaign that had folks holding signs was Scott Brown's. Admittedly, it was a bit chilly out there yesterday, but it wasn't unseasonably cold, it is December after all. This lack of excitement is the canary in the coal mine moment for the democrats and they ignore it at their peril.
The US Senate is currently debating legislation on: health care, energy, a potential second (jobs bill) stimulus and a promise/threat of taking up "immigration reform". If enacted these bills will transfer unprecedented power to the Federal government and registered democrats responded to this by staying home. If the majority of democrats in MA were excited by this agenda they would have voted in large numbers. The truth is that this agenda is only popular with the far left of the democratic party, even here in deep blue MA and independents are scared to death by it.
Some completely anecdotal, unscientific examples from yesterday. An independent voter approached me to tell me that he had voted for Scott. He also told me the guy at the desk told him he was requesting the "wrong ballot", just part of the joy of living in MA. Another told me he works for a small plumbing supply company and if the health care bill passes they will be forced to cut their employees from 55 down to 49. They don't want to do this, they simply can't afford to pay the mandates that will be imposed by this legislation.
So, how does all this help Scott? Martha Coakley will be campaigning on issues that only appeal to a small percentage of voters. If Scott Brown and this is a big if, can convince the independens that are a majority of voters in this state to cast a ballot for a republican, probably for the first time in their lives he has a fighting chance.
To give Scott a fighting chance the republicans in the US Senate need to stand up and fight instead of playing nice guy. This election needs to be fought on big issues. The principal one being a victory by Scott Brown denies the democrats 60 votes for the federal takeover of health care.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Soros, EPA Tagteam America
George Soros is about to make a mint off his investments in the Democratic party. The benefit of being worth billions is that he could afford to squander millions in his effort to defeat former President Bush in 04 and turn around and spend even more on democrats in 06 and 08. The Obama admistration just made those bets pay off. Big time!
Yesterday EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared CO2 a danger to public health that will henceforth be regulated by the Federal government. This decision gives the Federal government complete control over our economy. Ian Murray and Marlo Lewis explain the probable scope of the decision:
"Large apartment buildings and hospitals would need EPA operating permits to continue running their furnaces. Lawnmowers and aircraft alike would be regulated for fuel economy like automobiles. And as the EPA orders a retooling or even closure of the nation's power plants, electricity prices would skyrocket, and blackouts would become common."
and
"It will trigger a regulatory avalanche that vastly expand the number of activities that require EPA permitting -- fast-food franchises, apartment buildings and hospitals will soon all have to face the same crushing federal bureaucracy that has bedeviled energy firms for years."
When Europe went down this road they tried to ban propane grills. Having a backyard barbecue makes one an eco-criminal to the average EU bureaucrat. Seattle WA is trying to ban campfires on the beach because they claim it contributes to global warming. The statists meeting in Copenhagen won't be happy until they can regulate i.e. control everything we do. The Obama administration chose to ignore the Climategate scandal and its implications because they see the finish line before them. An honest person/administration would have admitted that the leaked e-mails cast the "consensus" of man made global warming into doubt and would not have labled CO2 a health hazard.
The Lisa Jackson's of the world can't accept that climate change happens regularly. More importantly, they can't accept that humans have very little impact on whether the planet warms or grows colder. Admitting this fact would undermine their ability to control our behavior. The American people would never submit to the massive tax increases and energy bills living under this regime would entail if they were told it would have no benefit to the planet and their ability to live on it. Until some archaeologist digs up a fleet of fossil fuel burning vehicles that early man drove across the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska causing the glaciers to melt and the flooding of the Bering Sea; I'll continue to believe that solar cycles, not man are the main cause behind climate change.
How did Ms. Jackson's decision benefit Mr. Soros? Simple.He's betting big on Brazil, in particular Petrobas. "Among investors bullish on Petrobras is George Soros, who last year made the oil company the largest single holding in his investment fund, according to Bloomberg." While the folks that he helped put in office are putting the American economy in a straight jacket he's putting his money into country that doesn't choose to commit economic suicide. For him it's the best of both worlds. He can live in a country following his progressive dream and still make a fortune in a country that won't sacrifice economic growth to appease the warmists at the UN.
Yesterday EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared CO2 a danger to public health that will henceforth be regulated by the Federal government. This decision gives the Federal government complete control over our economy. Ian Murray and Marlo Lewis explain the probable scope of the decision:
"Large apartment buildings and hospitals would need EPA operating permits to continue running their furnaces. Lawnmowers and aircraft alike would be regulated for fuel economy like automobiles. And as the EPA orders a retooling or even closure of the nation's power plants, electricity prices would skyrocket, and blackouts would become common."
and
"It will trigger a regulatory avalanche that vastly expand the number of activities that require EPA permitting -- fast-food franchises, apartment buildings and hospitals will soon all have to face the same crushing federal bureaucracy that has bedeviled energy firms for years."
When Europe went down this road they tried to ban propane grills. Having a backyard barbecue makes one an eco-criminal to the average EU bureaucrat. Seattle WA is trying to ban campfires on the beach because they claim it contributes to global warming. The statists meeting in Copenhagen won't be happy until they can regulate i.e. control everything we do. The Obama administration chose to ignore the Climategate scandal and its implications because they see the finish line before them. An honest person/administration would have admitted that the leaked e-mails cast the "consensus" of man made global warming into doubt and would not have labled CO2 a health hazard.
The Lisa Jackson's of the world can't accept that climate change happens regularly. More importantly, they can't accept that humans have very little impact on whether the planet warms or grows colder. Admitting this fact would undermine their ability to control our behavior. The American people would never submit to the massive tax increases and energy bills living under this regime would entail if they were told it would have no benefit to the planet and their ability to live on it. Until some archaeologist digs up a fleet of fossil fuel burning vehicles that early man drove across the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska causing the glaciers to melt and the flooding of the Bering Sea; I'll continue to believe that solar cycles, not man are the main cause behind climate change.
How did Ms. Jackson's decision benefit Mr. Soros? Simple.He's betting big on Brazil, in particular Petrobas. "Among investors bullish on Petrobras is George Soros, who last year made the oil company the largest single holding in his investment fund, according to Bloomberg." While the folks that he helped put in office are putting the American economy in a straight jacket he's putting his money into country that doesn't choose to commit economic suicide. For him it's the best of both worlds. He can live in a country following his progressive dream and still make a fortune in a country that won't sacrifice economic growth to appease the warmists at the UN.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Obama Declares Ostrich To Be New National Symbol
President Obama, uncomfortable with the martial image portrayed by the bald eagle has found a new bird to embody the new, improved America, the ostrich. Following her leader, Lisa Jackson of the EPA has embraced the new symbol with gusto. The ostrich's claim to fame is that it chooses to bury its head in the sand rather than face the ugly truth. That's exactly what the EPA has done with Climategate.
From the Wall Street Journal:
By IAN TALLEY
WASHINGTON--"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will early next week, possibly as soon as Monday, officially declare carbon dioxide a public danger, a trigger that could mean regulation for emitters across the economy, according to several people close to the matter.
Such an "endangerment" decision is necessary for the EPA to move ahead early next year with new emission standards for cars. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said it could also mean large emitters such as power stations, cement kilns, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants would have to curb their greenhouse gas output.
The announcement would also give President Barack Obama and his climate envoy negotiating leverage at a global climate summit starting next week in Copenhagen, Denmark and increase pressure on Congress to pass a climate bill that would modify the price of polluting.
While environmentalists celebrate EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it has caused many large emitters to cringe at the potential costs of compliance.
According to a preliminary endangerment finding published in April, EPA scientists fear that man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are contributing to a warming of the global climate. Senior EPA officials said in November the agency would likely make a final decision in December around the time of the summit."
The Obama administration won't let a little data fudging at CRU stop its drive to regulate the American economy into submission. Much of the world, heck even the UN understands that the leaked e-mails undercut the case for making drastic, painful reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide. Instead of abandoning this policy, or at the very least questioning whether increasing the costs of energy production and consumption will provide any benefit at all, the Obama administration is going full steam ahead. In fact, President Obama is still planning to go to Copenhagen to negotiate higher taxes for Americans when we are still in recession, paying winter heating bills and shopping for Christmas gifts. Ignoring the leaked e-mails, with phrases like "hide the decline" and "it's a tragedy we can't explain the cooling" is borderline criminal.
The refusal of the president and his administration to see that these documents have changed the game provides republicans with a wonderful opportunity. The American public gives democrats credit for their supposed dedication to science. By ignoring the fact that the global warming alarmists were cooking the books, democrats and the president are destroying that image. Ask the average American how long they would keep a financial advisor who told them to invest everything they have with Bernie Madoff after his ponzi scheme had been revealed. They would fire that person in a heartbeat. What the president is doing by ignoring the cooked warming data is no different than looking at Madoff's cooked returns and saying "it's easy money, only a fool wouldn't invest". Well, as the saying goes a fool and his money are soon parted. If democrats keep insisting that the American people be saddled with massive taxes to "save the planet" they'll soon be parted from their majorities in Congress.
From the Wall Street Journal:
By IAN TALLEY
WASHINGTON--"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will early next week, possibly as soon as Monday, officially declare carbon dioxide a public danger, a trigger that could mean regulation for emitters across the economy, according to several people close to the matter.
Such an "endangerment" decision is necessary for the EPA to move ahead early next year with new emission standards for cars. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said it could also mean large emitters such as power stations, cement kilns, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants would have to curb their greenhouse gas output.
The announcement would also give President Barack Obama and his climate envoy negotiating leverage at a global climate summit starting next week in Copenhagen, Denmark and increase pressure on Congress to pass a climate bill that would modify the price of polluting.
While environmentalists celebrate EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it has caused many large emitters to cringe at the potential costs of compliance.
According to a preliminary endangerment finding published in April, EPA scientists fear that man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are contributing to a warming of the global climate. Senior EPA officials said in November the agency would likely make a final decision in December around the time of the summit."
The Obama administration won't let a little data fudging at CRU stop its drive to regulate the American economy into submission. Much of the world, heck even the UN understands that the leaked e-mails undercut the case for making drastic, painful reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide. Instead of abandoning this policy, or at the very least questioning whether increasing the costs of energy production and consumption will provide any benefit at all, the Obama administration is going full steam ahead. In fact, President Obama is still planning to go to Copenhagen to negotiate higher taxes for Americans when we are still in recession, paying winter heating bills and shopping for Christmas gifts. Ignoring the leaked e-mails, with phrases like "hide the decline" and "it's a tragedy we can't explain the cooling" is borderline criminal.
The refusal of the president and his administration to see that these documents have changed the game provides republicans with a wonderful opportunity. The American public gives democrats credit for their supposed dedication to science. By ignoring the fact that the global warming alarmists were cooking the books, democrats and the president are destroying that image. Ask the average American how long they would keep a financial advisor who told them to invest everything they have with Bernie Madoff after his ponzi scheme had been revealed. They would fire that person in a heartbeat. What the president is doing by ignoring the cooked warming data is no different than looking at Madoff's cooked returns and saying "it's easy money, only a fool wouldn't invest". Well, as the saying goes a fool and his money are soon parted. If democrats keep insisting that the American people be saddled with massive taxes to "save the planet" they'll soon be parted from their majorities in Congress.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
A winning message
Conservatives worry that Carly Fiorina is another liberal republican in the mold of the ladies from Maine, Sens. Collins and Snowe. If nothing else, she wil be solid on health care. One can hope that if she realizes a government takeover in one sector of the economy imperils freedom, she can be convinced when it comes to energy etc. She will also be a huge improvement over Barbara Boxer. Her message will resonate with the general public, particularly women.
Friday, December 4, 2009
To Create Jobs, First Do No Harm
The unemployment numbers for November were just released and Wall Street is chearing that only 11,000 Americans lost their jobs. The news media will no doubt be trumpeting the success of President Obama's job summit. I can just see a gleeful Brian Williams informing America that "only one day after his job summit President Obama has turned the economy around". The sad truth is that 10% unemployment is nothing to crow about. Even more troubling, is that the president doesn't understand that his policies are to blame. In the snippet of the summit aired on the Nightly News an unidentified businessman told the president that companies weren't hiring because of the pending cap and trade and health care legislation. The president nodded and then told this gentleman, who presumably knows a thing or two about creating jobs, that when passed, the legislation will help, not hurt the economy.
For a cool aid free assesment, here's the Heritage Foundation's take:
"Executives like Dan DiMicco, CEO of steelmaker Nucor Corp, who told the Wall Street Journal: “Companies large and small are saying, ‘I am not going to do anything until these things — health care, climate legislation — go away or are resolved.’” Or Porta-King CEO Steve Schulte who tells USA Today his company is not investing because “proposals in Congress to tackle climate change and overhaul health care would raise costs.” These businessmen have every right to be worried. As we’ve detailed before, the Senate Health Bill currently being debated in the Senate would be a disaster for the U.S. economy."
Kills Jobs: All told, the Reid Bill raises taxes by $370.2 billion over the next ten years with many of those taxes starting to be collected this year with unemployment at 10.2% and rising. Worse, the bill includes a job killing employer mandate which taxes companies for hiring people. Specifically, companies with more than 50 employees that do not offer a health plan approved by federal bureaucrats will be forced to pay a $750 per employee job tax.
Hurts Small Businesses: The Reid Bill acknowledges it is terrible public policy for small businesses and tries to address this problem by including a “small business tax credit” to minimize the impact of the job killing employer mandates and regulation-caused increases in private health insurance premiums. But the tax credit only lasts two years and largely excludes small business owners, small businesses with high-average payrolls, and firms with 25 or more workers. Essentially, after all exclusions, the only eligible firms are those firms with 10 or fewer workers as well as those with low-income workers—the least likely to offer coverage even with a significant price reduction.
Hurts Poor: The Reid Bill’s employer mandate is especially punitive on poor families. Firms that hire an employee from a low-income family who qualify for an insurance subsidy are charged a tax penalty of $3,000. So a company could save $3,000 by hiring, say, someone with a working spouse or a teenager with working parents, rather than a single mother with three children. Worse, companies only have to pay $750 an employee instead of $3,000 if one quarter of employees are low-income. This creates a situation where, if a company has a lot of low-income workers, they can actually save money by dropping their health plan and just dumping all their employees into the federal exchange at their own expense."
President Obama refuses to see that his plans for ever bigger government are not good for the American economy. Even the revelations of Climategate haven't changed his mind on the need to reduce carbon emissions via painful tax increases. He only sees the green jobs potentially created covering the states of Arizona with solar panels and West Virginia with windmills.
The American economy will eventually recover and begin to actually add jobs instead of just losing them at a slower pace. The fewer shackles the government places on businesses and consumers, the faster the economy will recover and more jobs will be created.
For a cool aid free assesment, here's the Heritage Foundation's take:
"Executives like Dan DiMicco, CEO of steelmaker Nucor Corp, who told the Wall Street Journal: “Companies large and small are saying, ‘I am not going to do anything until these things — health care, climate legislation — go away or are resolved.’” Or Porta-King CEO Steve Schulte who tells USA Today his company is not investing because “proposals in Congress to tackle climate change and overhaul health care would raise costs.” These businessmen have every right to be worried. As we’ve detailed before, the Senate Health Bill currently being debated in the Senate would be a disaster for the U.S. economy."
Kills Jobs: All told, the Reid Bill raises taxes by $370.2 billion over the next ten years with many of those taxes starting to be collected this year with unemployment at 10.2% and rising. Worse, the bill includes a job killing employer mandate which taxes companies for hiring people. Specifically, companies with more than 50 employees that do not offer a health plan approved by federal bureaucrats will be forced to pay a $750 per employee job tax.
Hurts Small Businesses: The Reid Bill acknowledges it is terrible public policy for small businesses and tries to address this problem by including a “small business tax credit” to minimize the impact of the job killing employer mandates and regulation-caused increases in private health insurance premiums. But the tax credit only lasts two years and largely excludes small business owners, small businesses with high-average payrolls, and firms with 25 or more workers. Essentially, after all exclusions, the only eligible firms are those firms with 10 or fewer workers as well as those with low-income workers—the least likely to offer coverage even with a significant price reduction.
Hurts Poor: The Reid Bill’s employer mandate is especially punitive on poor families. Firms that hire an employee from a low-income family who qualify for an insurance subsidy are charged a tax penalty of $3,000. So a company could save $3,000 by hiring, say, someone with a working spouse or a teenager with working parents, rather than a single mother with three children. Worse, companies only have to pay $750 an employee instead of $3,000 if one quarter of employees are low-income. This creates a situation where, if a company has a lot of low-income workers, they can actually save money by dropping their health plan and just dumping all their employees into the federal exchange at their own expense."
President Obama refuses to see that his plans for ever bigger government are not good for the American economy. Even the revelations of Climategate haven't changed his mind on the need to reduce carbon emissions via painful tax increases. He only sees the green jobs potentially created covering the states of Arizona with solar panels and West Virginia with windmills.
The American economy will eventually recover and begin to actually add jobs instead of just losing them at a slower pace. The fewer shackles the government places on businesses and consumers, the faster the economy will recover and more jobs will be created.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Chris Matthews jumps the shark
The cadets at West Point do not represent an " enemy camp". I have no doubt they will do their best, some will give their lives to defend our nation. Just because they didn't seem to have a collective tingle up their legs at the President's oratory doesn't mean they will not follow the orders of their Commander and Chief. To suggest otherwise is reprehensible. Chris Matthews owes them an apology. If you agree I urge you to e-mail hardball@msnbc.com .
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Letter from a Mississippi doctor
This letter is making the rounds, but I thought I would post it here as well.
Dear Sirs:
"During my last night's shift in the ER, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tattoos, a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B tune for a ringtone. Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status: Medicaid. She smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still has money to buy beer.
And our Congress expects me to pay for this woman's health care? Our nation's health care crisis is not a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture - a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. A culture that thinks "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me". Life is really not that hard. Most of us reap what we sow.
Don't you agree?
STARNER JONES, MD Jackson , MS
This tracks with a conversation I had over Thanksgiving. A woman approaching retirement age stated that when she was younger, she made buying health care coverage a priority over going out all the time. She asked me why she should have to pay to cover people that make the opposite decision than she did. I had no answer for her. Before they institute nationalized health care the politicians better be able to give her one.
Dear Sirs:
"During my last night's shift in the ER, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tattoos, a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B tune for a ringtone. Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status: Medicaid. She smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still has money to buy beer.
And our Congress expects me to pay for this woman's health care? Our nation's health care crisis is not a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture - a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. A culture that thinks "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me". Life is really not that hard. Most of us reap what we sow.
Don't you agree?
STARNER JONES, MD Jackson , MS
This tracks with a conversation I had over Thanksgiving. A woman approaching retirement age stated that when she was younger, she made buying health care coverage a priority over going out all the time. She asked me why she should have to pay to cover people that make the opposite decision than she did. I had no answer for her. Before they institute nationalized health care the politicians better be able to give her one.
Platform for Prosperity
The Colorado GOP gets it. They are offering a platform, like Newt did in 94 with the Contract for America. Here are the policy positions that they are asking all Republican candidates to endorse.
Key Points from the Colorado GOP's 'Platform for Prosperity'
*Oppose efforts to increase taxes and fees unless they're put to a popular vote
*Restore a cap on state spending
*Invest in roads, bridges, higher education and workforce training
*Support a law to make health insurance portable from job to job
*Allow patients to purchase health insurance across state lines
*Promote responsible development of Colorado's energy resources
*Expand charter schools
*Require employers to verify that their workers are in the U.S. legally
*Prohibit state grants for women's health care to any organization that also provides abortions
*Oppose future stimulus bills
2010 has the potential to be a great year for Republicans. The Democrats will continue to enjoy a huge financial advantage however, which may limit their losses. Having a platform to run on can aid underfunded challengers that lack the ability to pay for mailings or advertising defeat entrenched Democrats. It's possible, the first time voters may see the name of the Republican candidate is when they are in the voting booth, but they will know what that Republican stands for.
Key Points from the Colorado GOP's 'Platform for Prosperity'
*Oppose efforts to increase taxes and fees unless they're put to a popular vote
*Restore a cap on state spending
*Invest in roads, bridges, higher education and workforce training
*Support a law to make health insurance portable from job to job
*Allow patients to purchase health insurance across state lines
*Promote responsible development of Colorado's energy resources
*Expand charter schools
*Require employers to verify that their workers are in the U.S. legally
*Prohibit state grants for women's health care to any organization that also provides abortions
*Oppose future stimulus bills
2010 has the potential to be a great year for Republicans. The Democrats will continue to enjoy a huge financial advantage however, which may limit their losses. Having a platform to run on can aid underfunded challengers that lack the ability to pay for mailings or advertising defeat entrenched Democrats. It's possible, the first time voters may see the name of the Republican candidate is when they are in the voting booth, but they will know what that Republican stands for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
