The United States is home to more than 2,000 dysfunctional High Schools. They represent 15 % of American High Schools Yet account for half of our dropouts. When you break this down you find that these institutions produce 81% of Native American dropouts, 73% of all American dropouts, and 66% of all Hispanic dropouts.
At our grade schools, two-thirds of all eight graders score below proficient in math and reading. The average African American or Latino 9 year old is three grades behind in these subjects.
We have dropped from first to twelfth place in the percentage of people between the ages of 25 to 34 who have a college degree. America is now in danger of producing a new generation that will be less educated than their parents.
Clearly it's not for lack of money. Over the past three decades we've nearly doubled spending on K-12 education in real terms. So, why are we spending so much and getting so little in return? The answer is that while the system is failing our children, it works very well for some adults. These adults include leaders of the teachers unions, They include the the politicians whom the unions reward with their cash and political support. They include the vast educational bureaucracies. They include teachers salaries that allow them to retire with more money than they made while they were teaching. In business terms, we have a system that rewards the providers and punishes the customers.
So, how do we fix it? Clearly a big part of the answer is giving parents more choices for their kids. For choices to mean anything, however, parents also need transparency so they can make real comparisons.
The Los Angeles Times just gave us an excellent example of this kind of transparency when it published a database of about 6,000 third through fifth grade teachers ranked by their effectiveness in raising student test scores. If you are a mom with a son or daughter in one of these classrooms, you know this information is vital. Unfortunately it's the type of information that seldom sees the light of day. Unfortunately our systems is set up to protect bad teachers rather than reward good teachers.
On top of that we have chancellors, superintendents and principals who can't hire and fire based on performance. We have tougher standards on "American Idol" And as long as we refuse to measure success by what our children are learning, we're going to have higher performance by pop stars than for public schools.
When we allow the children of other people to fail or leave school without an education, they do not disappear. They become adults who cannot provide for themselves. And guess what? The costs will be borne by our children.
It's time we begin ensuring that every boy and girl who enters a public school leaves with the same shot at the American Dream we insist on for our own children.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
When The Republicans Win They Better Listen Carefully!
Outsiders become insiders quickly if they agree to tax and spend. This cannot happen again because this is our last chance to get it right. Here is what I mean: In 1995-1996 The Senate introduced two bills to increase spending for every bill they introduced that would cut spending. By 2003-2004 they became much worse. In the House there were 1343 bills introduced to increase spending and just 35 to reduce it. A ratio of 30 to1.
You will recall The "Contract With America" said, that the Republicans would put an end to a "Government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money." What can be done? We know that our elected officials love to spend money, to get re-elected and to be hero's back home when they bring home the pork.
But in order to bring real change we ought to have term limits to start with for obvious reasons. As Americans we need to demand change for it to happen.
In the private sector when individual companies become bloated and mismanaged but competitive markets ensure that they eventually go bankrupt or get taken over and restructured. About 10% of U.S. companies go out of business each year and corporate executives get ousted all the time. Failures are eliminated in the private sector, and poor performance gets punished. By contrast, many Federal agency's are inefficient and perform poorly year after year and yet they survive and grow.
Fraud and abuse: Medicare : Fraudulent payments cost 20 Billion annually.
Medicaid: Inflated billings and bogus claims waste Billions. The GAO found $1 Billion of fraud in California's portion of Medicaid alone. The New York Times reported in 2005 that from 10 to 40% of the states annual budget of 45 billion may be siphoned off in fraud and abuse.
Medicaid Nursing Home Benefits: These benefits are supposed to be for the poor, but financial consultants help higher income seniors hide their assets in order to qualify. This scam costs taxpayers $10 billion each year.
Post 911 Grants: Much of this $8 billion to help repair damaged New York Offices went instead to build luxury condos. The grant to hand out free air-conditioners ballooned in costs from $15 million to $100 million due to management failures and bogus claims.
Housing Subsidies: Overpayment's in federal rental housing subsidies cost $2 billion each year. Head Start: This $7 billion program is rife with misuse of funds.
Social Security: Pays out about $1 billion in fraudulent disability benefits each year.
Farm Subsidies: The Dept of Agriculture pays out $500 million of improper farm subsidies each year. Food Stamps: This program pays out about $1 billion annually in fraudulent and erroneous benefits. Federal Emergency Management Agency: FEMA has a reputation for being sloppy with it's disaster aid. It tends to hand our money indiscriminately after hurricanes and it loses millions of dollars to fraud due to poor management.
Earned Income Tax Credit: Almost one third of this program about $9billion annually--are fraudulent.
Gates has been talking of cutting the defense budget, and it won't be difficult. The Pentagon spent $400 million over two years on new boots and tents. and other items at the same time it was discarding identical products as excess over three years, $4 billion was in excellent condition and often in unopened packages.
Of $68,000 first Class plane tickets purchased by the DOD in one recent year 73% were not justified.
In April of 2005 a $239 million system that monitored U.S. Borders "Has been hobbled for years by defective equipment that was poorly installed. An ex border patrol agent said, "The contractor sold us a bill of goods and no one in the border patrol was watching. All these failures placed Americans in danger." The New York Times reported that much of the $4.5 billion worth of equipment purchased by the government since 911 will have to be replaced because it is ineffective and unreliable. The $3.2 billion spent on airport screening equipment has not improved the detection of a hidden weapon or bomb since 2003.
The Dept. of Veterans Affairs scrapped a $472 million project in 2004 as a failure. The agency had already spent $265 million on the same project.
Rather than discipline a poor worker or fire him, federal managers try to move them into other offices like hot potatoes. Managers who are stuck with bad workers often give them good reviews so as not to rock the boat. The merit systems protection board notes that there is an ingrained culture to score virtually all workers highly in annual reviews.
A team at Duke University found in a two year study that regulations on the U.S. Health Care Industry create annual costs of 339 billion annually. Regulations are costly because they restrict consumer choices, make production expensive and stifle innovation.
The Republicans tried to abolish the dept of Education in the mid-90's but was unsuccessful. Outlays on that dept have almost doubled from $36billion in 2001 to $71 billion in 2005. The department has $7 billion in student loans that are delinquent.
Fannie May and Freddie Mac became a haven for former government officials and others with good political connections who wet there to make millions. 21 Fannie Mae executives earned more than $1 million a year.
They overstated profits by $9 billion.
Senator Tom Coburn Said, "Term limits would be the most important reform that could be made in Washington. It is not the only needed reform, but it would remove a key systematic bias that promotes continual government growth."
The Cato Institutes Chris Edwards proposed budget cuts in the following Budget.
All farm and rural subsidy programs should be abolished, it would save the taxpayers $38 billion.
Department of Defense:$40 billion
Department of Education:$71 billion
Department of Health and Human Services:$63 billion
Department of Homeland Security: $6 billion
Department of Housing and urban development:$42 billion
Department of the Interior:$4 billion
Department of Justice: $2 billion
Department of Labor :$ 6billion
Department of State: $2 billion
Department of Transportation: $51 billion
Other agencies and Activities: $43 billion
The total savings $380 billion
Reform minded newcomers to Congress face deeply entrenched opposition from the old timer's. They must "play or pay". That is go along with the system or suffer. To get good committee assignments, to get floor time in debates, or to get cash to campaign for re-election, members must curry favor with party leaders and power brokers. This is where term limits would help. Let's pray these brave reformers will have the nerve to weather the storm. Let's also pray that the party leaders realize that Conservative Government is crucial!
You will recall The "Contract With America" said, that the Republicans would put an end to a "Government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money." What can be done? We know that our elected officials love to spend money, to get re-elected and to be hero's back home when they bring home the pork.
But in order to bring real change we ought to have term limits to start with for obvious reasons. As Americans we need to demand change for it to happen.
In the private sector when individual companies become bloated and mismanaged but competitive markets ensure that they eventually go bankrupt or get taken over and restructured. About 10% of U.S. companies go out of business each year and corporate executives get ousted all the time. Failures are eliminated in the private sector, and poor performance gets punished. By contrast, many Federal agency's are inefficient and perform poorly year after year and yet they survive and grow.
Fraud and abuse: Medicare : Fraudulent payments cost 20 Billion annually.
Medicaid: Inflated billings and bogus claims waste Billions. The GAO found $1 Billion of fraud in California's portion of Medicaid alone. The New York Times reported in 2005 that from 10 to 40% of the states annual budget of 45 billion may be siphoned off in fraud and abuse.
Medicaid Nursing Home Benefits: These benefits are supposed to be for the poor, but financial consultants help higher income seniors hide their assets in order to qualify. This scam costs taxpayers $10 billion each year.
Post 911 Grants: Much of this $8 billion to help repair damaged New York Offices went instead to build luxury condos. The grant to hand out free air-conditioners ballooned in costs from $15 million to $100 million due to management failures and bogus claims.
Housing Subsidies: Overpayment's in federal rental housing subsidies cost $2 billion each year. Head Start: This $7 billion program is rife with misuse of funds.
Social Security: Pays out about $1 billion in fraudulent disability benefits each year.
Farm Subsidies: The Dept of Agriculture pays out $500 million of improper farm subsidies each year. Food Stamps: This program pays out about $1 billion annually in fraudulent and erroneous benefits. Federal Emergency Management Agency: FEMA has a reputation for being sloppy with it's disaster aid. It tends to hand our money indiscriminately after hurricanes and it loses millions of dollars to fraud due to poor management.
Earned Income Tax Credit: Almost one third of this program about $9billion annually--are fraudulent.
Gates has been talking of cutting the defense budget, and it won't be difficult. The Pentagon spent $400 million over two years on new boots and tents. and other items at the same time it was discarding identical products as excess over three years, $4 billion was in excellent condition and often in unopened packages.
Of $68,000 first Class plane tickets purchased by the DOD in one recent year 73% were not justified.
In April of 2005 a $239 million system that monitored U.S. Borders "Has been hobbled for years by defective equipment that was poorly installed. An ex border patrol agent said, "The contractor sold us a bill of goods and no one in the border patrol was watching. All these failures placed Americans in danger." The New York Times reported that much of the $4.5 billion worth of equipment purchased by the government since 911 will have to be replaced because it is ineffective and unreliable. The $3.2 billion spent on airport screening equipment has not improved the detection of a hidden weapon or bomb since 2003.
The Dept. of Veterans Affairs scrapped a $472 million project in 2004 as a failure. The agency had already spent $265 million on the same project.
Rather than discipline a poor worker or fire him, federal managers try to move them into other offices like hot potatoes. Managers who are stuck with bad workers often give them good reviews so as not to rock the boat. The merit systems protection board notes that there is an ingrained culture to score virtually all workers highly in annual reviews.
A team at Duke University found in a two year study that regulations on the U.S. Health Care Industry create annual costs of 339 billion annually. Regulations are costly because they restrict consumer choices, make production expensive and stifle innovation.
The Republicans tried to abolish the dept of Education in the mid-90's but was unsuccessful. Outlays on that dept have almost doubled from $36billion in 2001 to $71 billion in 2005. The department has $7 billion in student loans that are delinquent.
Fannie May and Freddie Mac became a haven for former government officials and others with good political connections who wet there to make millions. 21 Fannie Mae executives earned more than $1 million a year.
They overstated profits by $9 billion.
Senator Tom Coburn Said, "Term limits would be the most important reform that could be made in Washington. It is not the only needed reform, but it would remove a key systematic bias that promotes continual government growth."
The Cato Institutes Chris Edwards proposed budget cuts in the following Budget.
All farm and rural subsidy programs should be abolished, it would save the taxpayers $38 billion.
Department of Defense:$40 billion
Department of Education:$71 billion
Department of Health and Human Services:$63 billion
Department of Homeland Security: $6 billion
Department of Housing and urban development:$42 billion
Department of the Interior:$4 billion
Department of Justice: $2 billion
Department of Labor :$ 6billion
Department of State: $2 billion
Department of Transportation: $51 billion
Other agencies and Activities: $43 billion
The total savings $380 billion
Reform minded newcomers to Congress face deeply entrenched opposition from the old timer's. They must "play or pay". That is go along with the system or suffer. To get good committee assignments, to get floor time in debates, or to get cash to campaign for re-election, members must curry favor with party leaders and power brokers. This is where term limits would help. Let's pray these brave reformers will have the nerve to weather the storm. Let's also pray that the party leaders realize that Conservative Government is crucial!
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Our Constitution
I attended a Constitution dinner last week . There was a wonderful speaker there who made me realize what a wonderful thing it was to live in a country like ours. He explained all the hardships the founders had in just getting a quorum I felt great sitting there among people who I thought were like minded. The gentleman across from me taught history to high school seniors. I remarked to him that I was quite concerned that the Obama Administration was stepping all over our constitution. I gave him the example of Elizabeth Warren being appointed as special advisor to the White House. I went on to say that Mr. Becker's appointment to Medicaid was another example of appointing an office without the advice and consent of the Senate. As soon as I heard his reply which was lengthy I knew he was a " liberal" teaching our children about the Constitution.
The Senate should vote on all senior appointments within 60 days. But the president should give it a chance to vote.
Robert Gibbs explained, Ms Warren has been appointed "to lead" a team of about 30 or 40 people at The Department of Treasury working in standing up the new Consumer Finance protection Bureau. A transformation is happening in America. The dignified Constitution emphasizes Senate confirmation of cabinet officers, but effective power is increasingly exercised by presidential assistants. Despite Mr. Obama's campaign against the excesses of the Bush White House, he is now making his own contribution to the ongoing construction of an imperial presidency.
The Senate should change the rules to require an up or down vote on all executive branch appointments within 60 days. In exchange the president should sign legislation to require Senate approval of all Senior White House appointments. By reaching this agreement, the president regains the powers to govern effectively and the Senate regains it's authority to approve all major appointments. Regardless of their location in the executive branch.
In the coming few years let's hope our new elected officials will have the common sense to give up their petty privileges on the existing system and thereby strengthen our one last hope. Our Constitution.
The Senate should vote on all senior appointments within 60 days. But the president should give it a chance to vote.
Robert Gibbs explained, Ms Warren has been appointed "to lead" a team of about 30 or 40 people at The Department of Treasury working in standing up the new Consumer Finance protection Bureau. A transformation is happening in America. The dignified Constitution emphasizes Senate confirmation of cabinet officers, but effective power is increasingly exercised by presidential assistants. Despite Mr. Obama's campaign against the excesses of the Bush White House, he is now making his own contribution to the ongoing construction of an imperial presidency.
The Senate should change the rules to require an up or down vote on all executive branch appointments within 60 days. In exchange the president should sign legislation to require Senate approval of all Senior White House appointments. By reaching this agreement, the president regains the powers to govern effectively and the Senate regains it's authority to approve all major appointments. Regardless of their location in the executive branch.
In the coming few years let's hope our new elected officials will have the common sense to give up their petty privileges on the existing system and thereby strengthen our one last hope. Our Constitution.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Elizabeth lll
The White House isn't afraid to poke a stick in the eye of it's critics. How else do to explain President Obamas decision Friday to put Elizabeth Warren in charge of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau while avoiding Senate confirmation and, for that matter any political supervision.
The chutzpah here is something to behold. The pride of Harvard Law School. Ms Warren is a hero to the political left for proposing a new bureaucracy to micromanage the services that banks can offer consumers. A president with more political and constitutional scruple would have nominated someone else. Mr. Obamas choice is to appoint her anyway and dare the Senate to do something about it. Mr. Obama has appointed her an "Assistant" to him and a special advisor to Timothy Geithner. The president emphasized that Ms. Warren will enjoy "direct Access" to him and said she would oversee all aspects of the creation of the new agency, including staffing and policy planning. For all intents and purposes, Ms. Warren will be Treasure Secretary for all consumer lending.
We would have thought a Harvard Law professor would object to the extra-legality of this arrangement but, then, this is also the crew that gave us Obama Care via budget reconciliation and put Donald Berwick in charge of Medicare without a single debate. Remind us again why the Tea Party critique of Obama government is crazy.
The new bureau has independent rule-making authority and can grant itself $646 million. It will draw this money from the operations of the fed, so there won't be any messy intrusions of congressional appropriators
and will therefore receive limited congressional over-site. Ms. Warren's bureau will dictate how credit is allocated throughout the American economy-by banks and financial firms, and also by many small businesses that extend credit to consumers.
In a Blog posting Friday on the White House Web site, Ms. Warren made her intentions clear enough. "President Obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field again for families and creating protections that work not just for the wealthy or connected, but for every American." Given the economic growth and jobless figures, maybe we we should start calling this the "leveling" administration.
Ms. Warren was a vociferous opponent of allowing regulators charged with the maintaining the safety and soundness of banks to control this new bureau. No matter how destructive it's new rules may be they can only be rescinded by a two-thirds vote of the Administration's new Financial Stability Oversight Counsel. And the bureau will now be staffed and shaped by an "assistant" with no obligation to appear before the senate.
The possibility that an appointed official could hold significant authority is why the framers wrote the senate into the process of approving the president's senior hires. Article ll, Section 2 of the Constitution says the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint...Officers of the United states." Article ll Section 2 also says "Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone."
but Congress explicitly did not view the head of the financial consumer bureau as an inferior officer. On July 21, Mr. Obama signed a bill passed by both houses stating that the director shall be appointed by the president , by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
We have here another end-run around the Constitution niceties so Team Obama can invest huge authority in an unelected official who is unable to withstand a public vetting. So, a bureau inside an agency that it doesn't report to, with a budget not subject to congressional control, now gets a leader not subject to Senate confirmation. If Dick Cheney had tried this, he'd have been accused of staging a coup.
The chutzpah here is something to behold. The pride of Harvard Law School. Ms Warren is a hero to the political left for proposing a new bureaucracy to micromanage the services that banks can offer consumers. A president with more political and constitutional scruple would have nominated someone else. Mr. Obamas choice is to appoint her anyway and dare the Senate to do something about it. Mr. Obama has appointed her an "Assistant" to him and a special advisor to Timothy Geithner. The president emphasized that Ms. Warren will enjoy "direct Access" to him and said she would oversee all aspects of the creation of the new agency, including staffing and policy planning. For all intents and purposes, Ms. Warren will be Treasure Secretary for all consumer lending.
We would have thought a Harvard Law professor would object to the extra-legality of this arrangement but, then, this is also the crew that gave us Obama Care via budget reconciliation and put Donald Berwick in charge of Medicare without a single debate. Remind us again why the Tea Party critique of Obama government is crazy.
The new bureau has independent rule-making authority and can grant itself $646 million. It will draw this money from the operations of the fed, so there won't be any messy intrusions of congressional appropriators
and will therefore receive limited congressional over-site. Ms. Warren's bureau will dictate how credit is allocated throughout the American economy-by banks and financial firms, and also by many small businesses that extend credit to consumers.
In a Blog posting Friday on the White House Web site, Ms. Warren made her intentions clear enough. "President Obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field again for families and creating protections that work not just for the wealthy or connected, but for every American." Given the economic growth and jobless figures, maybe we we should start calling this the "leveling" administration.
Ms. Warren was a vociferous opponent of allowing regulators charged with the maintaining the safety and soundness of banks to control this new bureau. No matter how destructive it's new rules may be they can only be rescinded by a two-thirds vote of the Administration's new Financial Stability Oversight Counsel. And the bureau will now be staffed and shaped by an "assistant" with no obligation to appear before the senate.
The possibility that an appointed official could hold significant authority is why the framers wrote the senate into the process of approving the president's senior hires. Article ll, Section 2 of the Constitution says the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint...Officers of the United states." Article ll Section 2 also says "Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone."
but Congress explicitly did not view the head of the financial consumer bureau as an inferior officer. On July 21, Mr. Obama signed a bill passed by both houses stating that the director shall be appointed by the president , by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
We have here another end-run around the Constitution niceties so Team Obama can invest huge authority in an unelected official who is unable to withstand a public vetting. So, a bureau inside an agency that it doesn't report to, with a budget not subject to congressional control, now gets a leader not subject to Senate confirmation. If Dick Cheney had tried this, he'd have been accused of staging a coup.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
CATO Institute's New Book gives a guide to Limit Government
Education Subsidies
Education is a state, local and private matter-and that's where the constitution left it. Federal K-12 education programs have cost American taxpayers $1.8 trillion since 1965 without noticeably improving outcomes.Eliminating them would save $40 billion dollars.
Farm Subsidies
Far from "saving the family farm," federal agricultural subsidies are environmentally destructive corporate welfare,
with more than 70% of aid going to the largest 10% of agribusinesses.Zeroing out farm welfare will save,
$25 billion annually.
Military Overreach
The Constitution envisions a U.S. Military that "provides for the common defense" of the United States, not one that serve's as the worlds policeman and nation builder. By withdrawing our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, we could save at least $125 billion next year.
Transportation Programs
The Federal Government has no business funding the state and local projects that make up the bulk of federal transportation spending. Federal involvement results in pork-barrel spending, excess bureaucracy, and costly one-size fits all regulations. Moving funding for activities such as highways to the states and air traffic control to the private sector would spur innovation while also saving $85 billion a year.
Housing Subsidies
Federal interference in housing markets has done enormous damage to our cities and the economy at large. H.U.D. subsidies have concentrated poverty and fed urban blight, while Fannie Mae and Freddie mac stoked the financial crisis by putting millions of people into homes they couldn't afford. Getting Government out of the housing business will save $45 billion annually.
Federal Worker Pay
Federal workers enjoy far greater job security than their private sector counterparts- and far better total compensation: an average of $120,000 in wages and benefits. Cut federal compensation by 10% and save
$20 billion annually.
Energy Subsidies
The 30 year legacy of federal energy subsidies is replete with corporate cronyism and failed "investments"
entrepreneurs with their own capitol have incentives to develop viable alternative energy sources. Ending federal energy subsidies would save more than a $ 1 trillion dollars in the next decade.
Government Run Health Care
Medicare and Medicaid are driving the explosion in federal debt. The 2010 health care law should be repealed, but the same level of Medicaid cost savings can be realized by moving to a consumer driven health plan through vouchers, which would protect the elderly from government rationing. Medicaid should be converted to a fixed block grant to save money and encourage state innovation. Total savings would be:
a $ 1 trillion dollars over the next decade.
Drug War
Since the start of the federal War on Drugs in the 1970's We've spent hundreds of billions on a futile crusade that's done little to curb drug use and much to impair our civil liberties. In fact, A Cato study showed that Portugal's decriminalization of drugs actually lowered drug-related problems. Returning drug policy to the states would save at least: $15 billion annually.
Social Security
As the baby boom generation retires, our largest entitlement program lurches toward crisis. Social Security should be phased out as a mandatory program and an alternative voluntary system of private accounts, providing for ownership and inheritability, should be offered. Current obligations can be reduced by tying annual benefit growth to price inflation rather than wage growth, saving: $50 billion annually.
The Cato Institute has a new book entitled " The Struggle to Limit Government". Everyone who pays taxes and every elected official should read this book. Our future depends on " Limiting Government Spending!"
Education is a state, local and private matter-and that's where the constitution left it. Federal K-12 education programs have cost American taxpayers $1.8 trillion since 1965 without noticeably improving outcomes.Eliminating them would save $40 billion dollars.
Farm Subsidies
Far from "saving the family farm," federal agricultural subsidies are environmentally destructive corporate welfare,
with more than 70% of aid going to the largest 10% of agribusinesses.Zeroing out farm welfare will save,
$25 billion annually.
Military Overreach
The Constitution envisions a U.S. Military that "provides for the common defense" of the United States, not one that serve's as the worlds policeman and nation builder. By withdrawing our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, we could save at least $125 billion next year.
Transportation Programs
The Federal Government has no business funding the state and local projects that make up the bulk of federal transportation spending. Federal involvement results in pork-barrel spending, excess bureaucracy, and costly one-size fits all regulations. Moving funding for activities such as highways to the states and air traffic control to the private sector would spur innovation while also saving $85 billion a year.
Housing Subsidies
Federal interference in housing markets has done enormous damage to our cities and the economy at large. H.U.D. subsidies have concentrated poverty and fed urban blight, while Fannie Mae and Freddie mac stoked the financial crisis by putting millions of people into homes they couldn't afford. Getting Government out of the housing business will save $45 billion annually.
Federal Worker Pay
Federal workers enjoy far greater job security than their private sector counterparts- and far better total compensation: an average of $120,000 in wages and benefits. Cut federal compensation by 10% and save
$20 billion annually.
Energy Subsidies
The 30 year legacy of federal energy subsidies is replete with corporate cronyism and failed "investments"
entrepreneurs with their own capitol have incentives to develop viable alternative energy sources. Ending federal energy subsidies would save more than a $ 1 trillion dollars in the next decade.
Government Run Health Care
Medicare and Medicaid are driving the explosion in federal debt. The 2010 health care law should be repealed, but the same level of Medicaid cost savings can be realized by moving to a consumer driven health plan through vouchers, which would protect the elderly from government rationing. Medicaid should be converted to a fixed block grant to save money and encourage state innovation. Total savings would be:
a $ 1 trillion dollars over the next decade.
Drug War
Since the start of the federal War on Drugs in the 1970's We've spent hundreds of billions on a futile crusade that's done little to curb drug use and much to impair our civil liberties. In fact, A Cato study showed that Portugal's decriminalization of drugs actually lowered drug-related problems. Returning drug policy to the states would save at least: $15 billion annually.
Social Security
As the baby boom generation retires, our largest entitlement program lurches toward crisis. Social Security should be phased out as a mandatory program and an alternative voluntary system of private accounts, providing for ownership and inheritability, should be offered. Current obligations can be reduced by tying annual benefit growth to price inflation rather than wage growth, saving: $50 billion annually.
The Cato Institute has a new book entitled " The Struggle to Limit Government". Everyone who pays taxes and every elected official should read this book. Our future depends on " Limiting Government Spending!"
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
One Of The Most Important Reasons Why We must Win In Nov.
Labor Unions, Teachers Unions, Policemen, firemen and Nurses unions will all pull out the stops to elect their Democrats this Nov. Why? Because these people plus all government workers have a pension and health care the average American would die for. (and probably will). When you can retire then collect a pension paying you more that you made while teaching and you have in addition a Cadillac health plan you have a pension to die for. The problem is these outrageous pensions are breaking the states. There is simply not enough revenue to maintain this extravagance. In addition to this States and municipalities across the country are one event away from bankruptcy. The result of years of piling up spending commitments no matter the revenue base.
The next stop is Washington where Barney Frank has a proposal to provide a federal guarantee for local debt. This is why I entitled this blog the way I did.
Look for this to be a priority if Democrats hold the House and Senate this year as they seek to reward public unions for saving the day with their campaign cash of over $100 million.
Putting the U.S. taxpayers on the hook for city debt would only provide local politicians with another excuse to avoid the cutbacks, furloughs and reforms necessary to balance their ledgers. Whatever its short-term pain, bankruptcy is the only disicipline that will break the addiction.
The next stop is Washington where Barney Frank has a proposal to provide a federal guarantee for local debt. This is why I entitled this blog the way I did.
Look for this to be a priority if Democrats hold the House and Senate this year as they seek to reward public unions for saving the day with their campaign cash of over $100 million.
Putting the U.S. taxpayers on the hook for city debt would only provide local politicians with another excuse to avoid the cutbacks, furloughs and reforms necessary to balance their ledgers. Whatever its short-term pain, bankruptcy is the only disicipline that will break the addiction.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Obama Tries The Back Door If He Can't Get In The Front Door
When I was running a group of Department stores I used this pitch to help de-certify the unions. " You think by going union you will be protected from management." Let's say,"You are fired for a reason that you think is unfair and you don't have a union to protect you. The NLRB a government body is there to look after your interests and make sure you are treated fairly. Management, you and a NLRB member sit down and hear your case. The final decision is made by the NLRB. You pay no dues and your job is saved.(If the employer was wrong). Now assume you belonged to a union and the same thing happened. The meeting would be the same except one more party would be there (your union representative) the results would be the same, but, you would be paying dues.
Now, what happens if a SIEU member (Strongest most powerful union ) becomes the head of the government s National Labor Relations Board? Well, it has happened and Obama gave him this position after Senate Democrats refused to confirm him to the NLRB. Now, as a top lawyer for the SEIU Mr. Becker has suggested that the NLRB has the legal authority to impose card check-which eliminates secret ballots in union elections-without the approval of congress. And lo, at the end of August the NLRB dropped the bombshell, when, in a 3-2 decision, it decided to re-visit it's important 2007 Dana Corp. ruling.
Card check is a top labor priority because it allows a workplace to be organized if 50% of workers at the site sign a union card. Without a national law, unions have tried to persuade individual businesses to allow card check rather than secret ballots, and some have gone along.
When a workplace is organized after a secret ballot, workers are barred from a vote to "decertify" the union until after the the first negotiated contract expires. In it's Dana decision, however, the NLRB recognized that card check was an inferior substitute to secret ballots. It therefore held that when a company recognized a union via a card check, workers had the right to force an immediate secret vote on whether they really wanted to join that union.
The dana ruling is about protecting workers from union harassment. and if card check is as popular as unions claim, labor leaders should have no problem letting workers vote to ratify or reject a card check process. As NLRB member Peter Schaumber a Bush appointee, noted in his dissent to the NLRB decision to revisit the case, the dana ruling has in no way chilled the current card check process.
Since dana was decided, unions have been recognized via card check in 1,111 cases. The ruling has merely provided over site. In 54 of these cases, workers have demanded and received a vote on organization; In 15 of those elections workers voted against the union. This Dana reversal raises more questions about Mr. Beckers ethical standards. The labor lawyer has already refused to recuse himself from cases involving the SEIU, his former employer. Now, it turns out he has filed a brief for the AFL-CIO in the original dana case, arguing that there is no essential difference between card check and secret ballots and calling dana style protections "bad labor relations policy". Mr.Becker is clearly biased against dana and by any reasonable standard should not be able to rule on it.
Now that Mr. Obama went around the back door of congress to appoint his Mr. Becker it's time for Congress to investigate Mr. Becker's conflict of interest and turn the sensible dana decision into a statute that Mr. Obama's appointees can't override!
Now, what happens if a SIEU member (Strongest most powerful union ) becomes the head of the government s National Labor Relations Board? Well, it has happened and Obama gave him this position after Senate Democrats refused to confirm him to the NLRB. Now, as a top lawyer for the SEIU Mr. Becker has suggested that the NLRB has the legal authority to impose card check-which eliminates secret ballots in union elections-without the approval of congress. And lo, at the end of August the NLRB dropped the bombshell, when, in a 3-2 decision, it decided to re-visit it's important 2007 Dana Corp. ruling.
Card check is a top labor priority because it allows a workplace to be organized if 50% of workers at the site sign a union card. Without a national law, unions have tried to persuade individual businesses to allow card check rather than secret ballots, and some have gone along.
When a workplace is organized after a secret ballot, workers are barred from a vote to "decertify" the union until after the the first negotiated contract expires. In it's Dana decision, however, the NLRB recognized that card check was an inferior substitute to secret ballots. It therefore held that when a company recognized a union via a card check, workers had the right to force an immediate secret vote on whether they really wanted to join that union.
The dana ruling is about protecting workers from union harassment. and if card check is as popular as unions claim, labor leaders should have no problem letting workers vote to ratify or reject a card check process. As NLRB member Peter Schaumber a Bush appointee, noted in his dissent to the NLRB decision to revisit the case, the dana ruling has in no way chilled the current card check process.
Since dana was decided, unions have been recognized via card check in 1,111 cases. The ruling has merely provided over site. In 54 of these cases, workers have demanded and received a vote on organization; In 15 of those elections workers voted against the union. This Dana reversal raises more questions about Mr. Beckers ethical standards. The labor lawyer has already refused to recuse himself from cases involving the SEIU, his former employer. Now, it turns out he has filed a brief for the AFL-CIO in the original dana case, arguing that there is no essential difference between card check and secret ballots and calling dana style protections "bad labor relations policy". Mr.Becker is clearly biased against dana and by any reasonable standard should not be able to rule on it.
Now that Mr. Obama went around the back door of congress to appoint his Mr. Becker it's time for Congress to investigate Mr. Becker's conflict of interest and turn the sensible dana decision into a statute that Mr. Obama's appointees can't override!
Monday, September 13, 2010
Government Hit List Is Being Developed
As a consequence of us getting 30 million additional people health care, at the margins that's going to increase our costs-President Obama said "We knew that" at his press conference Friday in response to a question about rising health spending.
That wasn't how he sold the plan,but, anyway, that's a truism. Heres another: The White House was always going to blame insurance companies for any cost increases, even when it's own policies cause them.
Witness Kathleen Sibelius's Thursday letter to America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group-a thuggish message even by her standards. The Health and Human Secretary wrote that some insurers have been attributing part of their 2011 premium increases to Obama Care and warned them that:"There would be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."
Zero tolerance for expressing an opinion, or offering an explanation to policyholders? They're more subtle than this in Caraces.
What Ms. Sibelius really means is that the government will prohibit insurers from doing business if reality is not politically convenient for Democrats. Obama Care includes a slew of mandated benefits for next year, such as allowing children to remain on their parents plan until they are 26 and "free" preventive care (IE, no direct out-of-pocket cost sharing for consumers.) The tone of Ms. Sibelius's letter suggests that she doesn't understand that money is exchanged for goods and services, and that if Congress mandates new benefits, premiums will rise.
The Administration estimated that these regulations should increase all premiums by 1% to 2% on average. That isn't what insurers are finding in practice in the local, price sensitive individual and small business insurance markets, where coverage is typically less comprehensive to hold down costs.
For some current policies in some states, the one-year increase jumps as much as 9%,
Obama Care gives Ms. Sibelius's regulators the power to define "unreasonable" premium hikes, which will mean whatever they decide it will mean later this fall. She promised to keep a list of insurer's "with a record of unjustified rate increases" and then to bar them from Obama Care's subsidized "exchanges" when they come on line in 2014. In other words, insurers must except price controls now or face the retribution of a de facto ban on selling their products to consumers four years from now.
Democrats built this system and now they own it politically. The least they could do is to take credit for it's consequences. It seems to me that the Obama Administration is hell bent on driving all of these people out of business so he can have his single payer plan which he has always wanted.
That wasn't how he sold the plan,but, anyway, that's a truism. Heres another: The White House was always going to blame insurance companies for any cost increases, even when it's own policies cause them.
Witness Kathleen Sibelius's Thursday letter to America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group-a thuggish message even by her standards. The Health and Human Secretary wrote that some insurers have been attributing part of their 2011 premium increases to Obama Care and warned them that:"There would be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."
Zero tolerance for expressing an opinion, or offering an explanation to policyholders? They're more subtle than this in Caraces.
What Ms. Sibelius really means is that the government will prohibit insurers from doing business if reality is not politically convenient for Democrats. Obama Care includes a slew of mandated benefits for next year, such as allowing children to remain on their parents plan until they are 26 and "free" preventive care (IE, no direct out-of-pocket cost sharing for consumers.) The tone of Ms. Sibelius's letter suggests that she doesn't understand that money is exchanged for goods and services, and that if Congress mandates new benefits, premiums will rise.
The Administration estimated that these regulations should increase all premiums by 1% to 2% on average. That isn't what insurers are finding in practice in the local, price sensitive individual and small business insurance markets, where coverage is typically less comprehensive to hold down costs.
For some current policies in some states, the one-year increase jumps as much as 9%,
Obama Care gives Ms. Sibelius's regulators the power to define "unreasonable" premium hikes, which will mean whatever they decide it will mean later this fall. She promised to keep a list of insurer's "with a record of unjustified rate increases" and then to bar them from Obama Care's subsidized "exchanges" when they come on line in 2014. In other words, insurers must except price controls now or face the retribution of a de facto ban on selling their products to consumers four years from now.
Democrats built this system and now they own it politically. The least they could do is to take credit for it's consequences. It seems to me that the Obama Administration is hell bent on driving all of these people out of business so he can have his single payer plan which he has always wanted.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
It's Obamas Economy Now!
George Bush started the stimulus plan with $168 Billion now 19 months later enter Obama's Stimulus ll for a hefty $814 Billion which was also supposed to make up for lost private demand. It to was a combination of the one-time tax rebates and spending mostly on social programs like Medicade rather than on "Shovel ready projects." Mr. Summer's promised this would have a 1.5 multiplier effect on GDP growth, and White house economistsChristina Romer and Jared Bernstein famously predicted the spending would keep the jobless rate below 8%.
All during this time the federal Reserve was also feeding the economy with unprecedented monetary stimulus,cutting it's benchmark interest rate to near zero and expanding it's balance sheet to more than $2 Trillion by purchasing mortgage backed securities and other assets.
During this time too, Congress passed other industry specific bills-cash for clunkers, the $8000 home buyers tax credit, mortgage payment relief, and jobless benefits up to 99 weeks. Yet all of this has merely stolen auto and home purchases from the future, with sales failing again, despite historically low interests rates.
Now U.S growth has decelerated to a mere 1.6 in the second quarter and a jobless rate of 9.6 after three consecutive months of job losses. In sum, never before has government has spent so much and intervened so directly in credit allocation to spur growth, yet the results have been mediocre at best. In return for adding nearly $3 trillion in federal debt in two years , we still have 14,9 million unemployed.
Democrats have embarked on the most sweeping expansion of government since the 1960's, imposing national health care, rewriting financial laws from top to bottom, attempting to re-regulate the telecom industry, and imposing vast new costs on energy, among many other proposals, not to stop there, in January it plans to impose a huge new tax increase on the "Wealthy."which in practice means on the most profitable small businesses.
Central to Mr. Obama's political strategy for passing these priorities has been trashing business and bankers as greedy profiteers. His administration has denounced or held up as political or legal targets the Chrysler bond holders, Wall Street bonuses, Goldman Sachs, health insurer profits, carbon energy investors and anyone else who has dared to oppose any of it's plans to "transform" U.S. society. At the Labor Day event in Milwaukee, Mr Obama was at it again, declaring that "anyone who thinks we can move this economy forward with a few doing well at the top, hoping that it will trickle down to working folks running faster and faster just to keep up-They just haven't studied our history. We didn't become the most prosperous country in the world by rewarding greed and recklessness."
Such rhetoric is not the way to restore business, it only spreads fear and even greater uncertainty.
As for blaming Republicans with only 41 senators they couldn't even block the $10 billion teachers union bailout. The only major Obama priorities that haven't passed are the cap and trade and the union card check. These were blocked by handful of Democrats who finally said "no mas." No administration since L.B J's in 1965 have passed so much of it's agenda in one congress- which is precisely the problem.
The Democrat's purposely used the recession as a political opening to re-distribute income, reverse the free market reforms of the Reagan era, and put government at the commanding heights of economic decision making.
Mr Obama and the Democratic Congress have succeeded in doing all of this despite the growing opposition of the American people who are now enduring the results. The only path back to robust growth and prosperity is to stop this agenda dead in it's tracks, and then by stages to reverse it. These are the economic stakes in November.
All during this time the federal Reserve was also feeding the economy with unprecedented monetary stimulus,cutting it's benchmark interest rate to near zero and expanding it's balance sheet to more than $2 Trillion by purchasing mortgage backed securities and other assets.
During this time too, Congress passed other industry specific bills-cash for clunkers, the $8000 home buyers tax credit, mortgage payment relief, and jobless benefits up to 99 weeks. Yet all of this has merely stolen auto and home purchases from the future, with sales failing again, despite historically low interests rates.
Now U.S growth has decelerated to a mere 1.6 in the second quarter and a jobless rate of 9.6 after three consecutive months of job losses. In sum, never before has government has spent so much and intervened so directly in credit allocation to spur growth, yet the results have been mediocre at best. In return for adding nearly $3 trillion in federal debt in two years , we still have 14,9 million unemployed.
Democrats have embarked on the most sweeping expansion of government since the 1960's, imposing national health care, rewriting financial laws from top to bottom, attempting to re-regulate the telecom industry, and imposing vast new costs on energy, among many other proposals, not to stop there, in January it plans to impose a huge new tax increase on the "Wealthy."which in practice means on the most profitable small businesses.
Central to Mr. Obama's political strategy for passing these priorities has been trashing business and bankers as greedy profiteers. His administration has denounced or held up as political or legal targets the Chrysler bond holders, Wall Street bonuses, Goldman Sachs, health insurer profits, carbon energy investors and anyone else who has dared to oppose any of it's plans to "transform" U.S. society. At the Labor Day event in Milwaukee, Mr Obama was at it again, declaring that "anyone who thinks we can move this economy forward with a few doing well at the top, hoping that it will trickle down to working folks running faster and faster just to keep up-They just haven't studied our history. We didn't become the most prosperous country in the world by rewarding greed and recklessness."
Such rhetoric is not the way to restore business, it only spreads fear and even greater uncertainty.
As for blaming Republicans with only 41 senators they couldn't even block the $10 billion teachers union bailout. The only major Obama priorities that haven't passed are the cap and trade and the union card check. These were blocked by handful of Democrats who finally said "no mas." No administration since L.B J's in 1965 have passed so much of it's agenda in one congress- which is precisely the problem.
The Democrat's purposely used the recession as a political opening to re-distribute income, reverse the free market reforms of the Reagan era, and put government at the commanding heights of economic decision making.
Mr Obama and the Democratic Congress have succeeded in doing all of this despite the growing opposition of the American people who are now enduring the results. The only path back to robust growth and prosperity is to stop this agenda dead in it's tracks, and then by stages to reverse it. These are the economic stakes in November.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
SHAKESPEARE Had Our Same Problems 378 Years Ago
Enter Hamlet.
To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
and by opposing end them. To die-to sleep-
no more; and by to sleep to say we end
the heartache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to. Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished, to die-to sleep.
To sleep-perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub!
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
that makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's* contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
the insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his *quietus make
With a* bare bodkin? Who would these* fartels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death-
The undiscovered country, from whose born
No traveler returns-puzzles the will,
And makes us bear those ills we have
Than to fly to others that we know not not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action.-*Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! -Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remembered.
contumely: humiliation
quietus: "he is quit"
bare bodkin: dagger
fartels: bundles, burdens
soft you: hush
Notice the insolence of office? It must be something in the water! Hopefully we can refresh the water in November.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Vote To Repeal Obama Care
Facing a nationwide backlash, Democratic congressional candidates have a new message for voters: We know you don't like Obama Care, so we'll fix it.
This was the line offered by Democrat Mark Critz, who won a special election in Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district after expressing opposition to the law and promising to mend it-but not to repeal it.
For Democrats who voted for Obama Care, this tactic is an escape route, a chance to distance themselves from the president with a vague promise to fix health-care reform in the next congress. Dr. Scherz and Docs4PatientCare are enlisting thousands of doctors in an unorthodox and unprecedented action. Because the issue this election is so stark -literally life and death for millions of Americans in the years ahead-we are this week posting a "Dear Patient" letter in our waiting rooms. The letter in unambiguous language what the new law means:
Dear Patient,
Section 1311 of the new health care legislation gives the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and her appointees the power to establish health care guidelines that your doctor must abide by or face penalties and fines. In making doctors answerable in the federal bureaucracy this bill effectively makes them employees of the government and means that your doctor and you are no longer in charge of your health care decisions. This new law politicizes medicine and in my opinion destroys the sanctity of the doctor patient relationship that makes the American health care system the best in the world. Obama Care will bring major cost increases, rising insurance premiums, higher taxes, a decline in new medical techniques, a fall off of the development of miracle drugs as well as rationing by government panels and by bureaucrats.like passionate rationing advocate Donald Berwick that will force delays of months sometimes years for hospitalization or surgery. We will cite the brute facts of Obama Care's passage: Despite countless protests
by doctors and overwhelming public opposition-up to 60% of Americans opposed this bill. The current party pushed this bill through legal bribes and Chicago style threats and is determined now to resist any repeal and replace efforts. The Democratic leadership and the White House completely dismissed the will of the people in ruthlessly pushing through this legislation.
In the face of voter anger some Democratic candidates are now trying to make a cosmetic retreat, calling for for minor modifications or pretending they are opposed to government-run medicine. Once the election is over, however, they will vote with their party bosses against repealing the bill.
Missouri voters rejected Obama Care overwhelmingly in August 71% to 29% to reject the federal requirement that all individuals purchase health insurance. America's doctors have millions of personal interactions each week with patients. We have political power. We intend to use it by working to defeat those who have disrupted and gravely endangered the best health-care system in the world.
The sad story regarding this bill is that no one read the bill , even Speaker Polisi said, "Now that we've passed the bill we will find out whats in it!"
This was the line offered by Democrat Mark Critz, who won a special election in Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district after expressing opposition to the law and promising to mend it-but not to repeal it.
For Democrats who voted for Obama Care, this tactic is an escape route, a chance to distance themselves from the president with a vague promise to fix health-care reform in the next congress. Dr. Scherz and Docs4PatientCare are enlisting thousands of doctors in an unorthodox and unprecedented action. Because the issue this election is so stark -literally life and death for millions of Americans in the years ahead-we are this week posting a "Dear Patient" letter in our waiting rooms. The letter in unambiguous language what the new law means:
Dear Patient,
Section 1311 of the new health care legislation gives the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and her appointees the power to establish health care guidelines that your doctor must abide by or face penalties and fines. In making doctors answerable in the federal bureaucracy this bill effectively makes them employees of the government and means that your doctor and you are no longer in charge of your health care decisions. This new law politicizes medicine and in my opinion destroys the sanctity of the doctor patient relationship that makes the American health care system the best in the world. Obama Care will bring major cost increases, rising insurance premiums, higher taxes, a decline in new medical techniques, a fall off of the development of miracle drugs as well as rationing by government panels and by bureaucrats.like passionate rationing advocate Donald Berwick that will force delays of months sometimes years for hospitalization or surgery. We will cite the brute facts of Obama Care's passage: Despite countless protests
by doctors and overwhelming public opposition-up to 60% of Americans opposed this bill. The current party pushed this bill through legal bribes and Chicago style threats and is determined now to resist any repeal and replace efforts. The Democratic leadership and the White House completely dismissed the will of the people in ruthlessly pushing through this legislation.
In the face of voter anger some Democratic candidates are now trying to make a cosmetic retreat, calling for for minor modifications or pretending they are opposed to government-run medicine. Once the election is over, however, they will vote with their party bosses against repealing the bill.
Missouri voters rejected Obama Care overwhelmingly in August 71% to 29% to reject the federal requirement that all individuals purchase health insurance. America's doctors have millions of personal interactions each week with patients. We have political power. We intend to use it by working to defeat those who have disrupted and gravely endangered the best health-care system in the world.
The sad story regarding this bill is that no one read the bill , even Speaker Polisi said, "Now that we've passed the bill we will find out whats in it!"
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Because Of Obama I lost a 25 Year Old Friend Today.
Mr. Obama, see what you have done! Because your administration has passed a health care bill that a majority of Americans didn't want, took over two car companies that Americans didn't want you to do, spent a trillion dollars of stimulus money on several year old wish lists of Democrats which did nothing to create jobs. I have lost a good friend.
Those who support you are naturally those of whom you have helped: The school teachers, the policemen,
the firemen, and the millions of government workers who make and average of $20,000 a year over the average public worker. The unions were handsomely given a better deal than the shareholders of the companies that were taken over. These people and others on government welfare approve of your administration.
Then, to add salt to the wound, you supported the Muslim mosque to be built near the 911 site.
When our economy is at it's lowest and on the verge of a depression your vice president said, "The stimulus is working."
When I reminded my liberal friend of these things he was so upset he decided he no longer wanted to be my friend. I truly hope and pray that when we again control the house and the senate we don't treat the democrats as we were treated the last 4 years.
Those who support you are naturally those of whom you have helped: The school teachers, the policemen,
the firemen, and the millions of government workers who make and average of $20,000 a year over the average public worker. The unions were handsomely given a better deal than the shareholders of the companies that were taken over. These people and others on government welfare approve of your administration.
Then, to add salt to the wound, you supported the Muslim mosque to be built near the 911 site.
When our economy is at it's lowest and on the verge of a depression your vice president said, "The stimulus is working."
When I reminded my liberal friend of these things he was so upset he decided he no longer wanted to be my friend. I truly hope and pray that when we again control the house and the senate we don't treat the democrats as we were treated the last 4 years.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Senator Jim DeMint S.C. Republican
South Carolinas Senator Jim DeMints Senate Conservatives Fund has taken Washington by storm. The fund raising group has already helped eight underdog Reagonite candidates win Republican Senate primaries this year. In two years, the fund has raised and spent nearly $2million from nearly 50,000 individual contributors.
Mr. DeMint's mission is to bring more Jim DeMint's to the Senate--that is, people with an unfailing antagonism to big government. Over the past 5 years, Mr. DeMint has established himself as the pre-eminent conservative in congress--he has a near perfect National Taxpayer Union rating--with Tom Cobburn as a close second. Other victors helped by Mr. DeMint include Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mr. Toomey of Pennsylvania and Mike Lee of Utah. He says his goal is to raise $5million this cycle. That's a pittance in big-money politics, but, Mr. DeMint's strategic, targeted spending has flipped more races than even he thought possible. "I'm not a Kingmaker," he insists, even though that's exactly what many political pros call him. We've got too many Kings in Washington already.
"When I got to Congress in 1999 instead of working on the reforms that I ran on-wealth-creating personal
accounts and individually owned health Insurance and some simple tax, the things that I thought all of us believed in-instead we worked on redistricting and getting the vunerables on the right committees and getting earmarks to the people that needed them. Everything was about numbers and electing more Republicans. We'd always promise to get to the principals later." I was over there at the Senate committee making fund raising calls and so many people were saying, "I'm not giving you guys another dime until you start acting like Republicans." That's when I got the idea of starting a committee to just help conservative candidates.
His frustration boiled over in 2009 when the Republican Senatorial Committee endorsed Senator Arlan Spector and Charlie Crist, neither of whom is a Republican one year later.
Mr. DeMint was the first major political figure to indorse Marco Rubio aagainst Govenor Crist in Florida. Although Mr.Rubio is embraced now as a rising star of the Republican Party, at the time people laughed.
Last week Lisa Murkowski apparently lost to Joe Miller in Alaska's Republican primary. She and her father have held that Senate seat for 30 years. Mr. DeMint said, "This should be a wake up call to Republicans politicans who go to Washington to bring home bacon aren't wanted."
When Mr. DeMint was asked what Republicans should do if they take back the House and Senate this year. He said, "First put a cap on spending." "Next, We may not be able to repeal Obama Care but we can cut off funding it." "Sell Chrysler and GM. get out of it. Privatise Freddie and Fannie so we can get out of the business of running the housing industry." He also is in favor of a low rate flat tax or consumption tax.
He has a personal crusade to end earmarks. He thinks Republicans can re-connect with voters by doing away with pork-barrel spending.
But, in a $3.7 trillion aren't earmarks trivial? He scoffs, "They always say, it's just a small amount of money, but earmarks always enlarge our budget and buy votes so that massive bills can go through." Members haven't been able to fight against these obese budgets, he says, because, "When we direct money back home through earmarks , it makes us complicit in the spending process, It's a killer."
"In the House John Boehner and the Republicans get it, I'm not so sure about the senate."
"I think we are in danger of doing the same thing we did before, where a lot of young conservatives come in who have been out there campaigning on the right issues, but then all the senior guys take control of the committees and it's business as usual." He warns, "This may be our last chance with voters because if we're given the majority---and don't reform Washington, everybody is going to say, what's wrong with these guys? We need a third party."
He says he has more faith in voters than the people they elect. "I'm getting optimistic, I think as I talk to people around the country---they seem to get it. They want to return to those things that made America different and great. They understand that what the government has done is so harmful, in terms of spending, and takeover's, the debt, it has made the people who are not normally political and not generally interested in it alarmed."
Mr. DeMint's mission is to bring more Jim DeMint's to the Senate--that is, people with an unfailing antagonism to big government. Over the past 5 years, Mr. DeMint has established himself as the pre-eminent conservative in congress--he has a near perfect National Taxpayer Union rating--with Tom Cobburn as a close second. Other victors helped by Mr. DeMint include Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mr. Toomey of Pennsylvania and Mike Lee of Utah. He says his goal is to raise $5million this cycle. That's a pittance in big-money politics, but, Mr. DeMint's strategic, targeted spending has flipped more races than even he thought possible. "I'm not a Kingmaker," he insists, even though that's exactly what many political pros call him. We've got too many Kings in Washington already.
"When I got to Congress in 1999 instead of working on the reforms that I ran on-wealth-creating personal
accounts and individually owned health Insurance and some simple tax, the things that I thought all of us believed in-instead we worked on redistricting and getting the vunerables on the right committees and getting earmarks to the people that needed them. Everything was about numbers and electing more Republicans. We'd always promise to get to the principals later." I was over there at the Senate committee making fund raising calls and so many people were saying, "I'm not giving you guys another dime until you start acting like Republicans." That's when I got the idea of starting a committee to just help conservative candidates.
His frustration boiled over in 2009 when the Republican Senatorial Committee endorsed Senator Arlan Spector and Charlie Crist, neither of whom is a Republican one year later.
Mr. DeMint was the first major political figure to indorse Marco Rubio aagainst Govenor Crist in Florida. Although Mr.Rubio is embraced now as a rising star of the Republican Party, at the time people laughed.
Last week Lisa Murkowski apparently lost to Joe Miller in Alaska's Republican primary. She and her father have held that Senate seat for 30 years. Mr. DeMint said, "This should be a wake up call to Republicans politicans who go to Washington to bring home bacon aren't wanted."
When Mr. DeMint was asked what Republicans should do if they take back the House and Senate this year. He said, "First put a cap on spending." "Next, We may not be able to repeal Obama Care but we can cut off funding it." "Sell Chrysler and GM. get out of it. Privatise Freddie and Fannie so we can get out of the business of running the housing industry." He also is in favor of a low rate flat tax or consumption tax.
He has a personal crusade to end earmarks. He thinks Republicans can re-connect with voters by doing away with pork-barrel spending.
But, in a $3.7 trillion aren't earmarks trivial? He scoffs, "They always say, it's just a small amount of money, but earmarks always enlarge our budget and buy votes so that massive bills can go through." Members haven't been able to fight against these obese budgets, he says, because, "When we direct money back home through earmarks , it makes us complicit in the spending process, It's a killer."
"In the House John Boehner and the Republicans get it, I'm not so sure about the senate."
"I think we are in danger of doing the same thing we did before, where a lot of young conservatives come in who have been out there campaigning on the right issues, but then all the senior guys take control of the committees and it's business as usual." He warns, "This may be our last chance with voters because if we're given the majority---and don't reform Washington, everybody is going to say, what's wrong with these guys? We need a third party."
He says he has more faith in voters than the people they elect. "I'm getting optimistic, I think as I talk to people around the country---they seem to get it. They want to return to those things that made America different and great. They understand that what the government has done is so harmful, in terms of spending, and takeover's, the debt, it has made the people who are not normally political and not generally interested in it alarmed."
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Our "Moderate Muslim" Problem
The New York Times, Oct. 19, 2001: "Imam Anwar Al-Awalaki, spiritual leader at the Dar al-Hijra mosque inn Virginia, one of the nation's largest...Is held up as a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West."
NBC's nightly news with Brian Williams, Dec 9, 2004: "It's the TV industry's newest experiment, Bridges TV," billing itself the "American Muslim Lifestyle network." It's the brainchild of Aasiya Hassan, an architect, and her husband, Muzzamil Hassan, a banker, who are disturbed that negative images of Muslims seem to dominate TV,especially since 9/11.
The Boston Globe editorial, August 4, 2010: "The simple fact is there is nothing threatening about the proposed Islamic center, which is being spearheaded by Feisal Abdul Rauf, one of the most respected moderate Muslim leaders in the country."
See where this is going?
Most readers probably know of Awalaki as the U.S. born Iman who presided over the mosque attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers, Awiaki also served as theological mentor to Fort Hood killer Nidal Malik Hasan, would be Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad.
President Obama has authorized to assinate Awlaki, now thought to be living in Yeman.
As for Bridges TV, the saccharine story told by Brian Williams and reporter Ron Allen (complete with scenes of the family's domestic bliss in their modest home in Buffalo, N.Y.) came to an abrupt end in February 2009, when Mr. Hasan beheaded his wife after she filed for divorce, evicted him from her home, and won an order of protection.
Now, we have the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque, opponents of which are being wildely braanded as bigots. The argument here is that Mr. Rauf really is a moderate, unlike Awlaki. That might well be so_by the the standards of his native Kuwait. But, a man who claims to condem all forms of terrorism yet refuses to call Hamas a terrorist group is not a moderate by American standards.
"Moderate Muslims denounce terror that's commited in the name of Islam, but, they deny that religion has any thing to do with it." By contrast, reform-minded Muslims denounce terror that is committed in the name of Islam and acknowdledge that religion is used to inspire it.
When it comes to heralding the arrival of long awaited moderates, there's nothing more embarrassing than a case of pre-mature congratulation.
It's difficult to even concieve that New Yorkers will allow this to happen. I'll bet on N.Y.
NBC's nightly news with Brian Williams, Dec 9, 2004: "It's the TV industry's newest experiment, Bridges TV," billing itself the "American Muslim Lifestyle network." It's the brainchild of Aasiya Hassan, an architect, and her husband, Muzzamil Hassan, a banker, who are disturbed that negative images of Muslims seem to dominate TV,especially since 9/11.
The Boston Globe editorial, August 4, 2010: "The simple fact is there is nothing threatening about the proposed Islamic center, which is being spearheaded by Feisal Abdul Rauf, one of the most respected moderate Muslim leaders in the country."
See where this is going?
Most readers probably know of Awalaki as the U.S. born Iman who presided over the mosque attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers, Awiaki also served as theological mentor to Fort Hood killer Nidal Malik Hasan, would be Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad.
President Obama has authorized to assinate Awlaki, now thought to be living in Yeman.
As for Bridges TV, the saccharine story told by Brian Williams and reporter Ron Allen (complete with scenes of the family's domestic bliss in their modest home in Buffalo, N.Y.) came to an abrupt end in February 2009, when Mr. Hasan beheaded his wife after she filed for divorce, evicted him from her home, and won an order of protection.
Now, we have the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque, opponents of which are being wildely braanded as bigots. The argument here is that Mr. Rauf really is a moderate, unlike Awlaki. That might well be so_by the the standards of his native Kuwait. But, a man who claims to condem all forms of terrorism yet refuses to call Hamas a terrorist group is not a moderate by American standards.
"Moderate Muslims denounce terror that's commited in the name of Islam, but, they deny that religion has any thing to do with it." By contrast, reform-minded Muslims denounce terror that is committed in the name of Islam and acknowdledge that religion is used to inspire it.
When it comes to heralding the arrival of long awaited moderates, there's nothing more embarrassing than a case of pre-mature congratulation.
It's difficult to even concieve that New Yorkers will allow this to happen. I'll bet on N.Y.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The Dodd-Frank Bailout is Already Here.
On July 21, when Obama signed the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill, he promised; "There will be no more tax-payer funded bailouts period." How long will will this Obama promise last? Well. The N.Y. Times reported today that "The Obama Administration" on Wednesday pumped 3 billion into programs intended to stop the unemployed from losing their homes, "including a program announced by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, "will draw on $1 billion authorized by the new financial overhaul law." Just one month ago Obama promised there would be no more bailouts!
Faced with the utter failure of it's Tarp funded mortgage bailout, the Obama administration is now turning to the Lefts old stand-in for housing market interference. The government sponsored Fannie and Freddie. Fannie Mae is now working with the National Council of State Housing Agencies to let people buy houses with little or no down payment, just like the GSE's did at the height of the housing bubble. Last week Freddie Mac was promoting no-down payment loans.
All this despite the fact that last week Fannie Mae announced a $1.2 billion loss in the second quarter and this week Freddie Mac announced a 4,71 billion loss. Both companies were also forced to ask for more Obama bailout cash, including $1.5 Billion for Fannie and $1.8 billion for Freddie. All your tax dollars. In total we have spent 150 billion bailing them out and they are starting out again.
By allowing the above, the Obama administration is only prolonging economic hardship.
Faced with the utter failure of it's Tarp funded mortgage bailout, the Obama administration is now turning to the Lefts old stand-in for housing market interference. The government sponsored Fannie and Freddie. Fannie Mae is now working with the National Council of State Housing Agencies to let people buy houses with little or no down payment, just like the GSE's did at the height of the housing bubble. Last week Freddie Mac was promoting no-down payment loans.
All this despite the fact that last week Fannie Mae announced a $1.2 billion loss in the second quarter and this week Freddie Mac announced a 4,71 billion loss. Both companies were also forced to ask for more Obama bailout cash, including $1.5 Billion for Fannie and $1.8 billion for Freddie. All your tax dollars. In total we have spent 150 billion bailing them out and they are starting out again.
By allowing the above, the Obama administration is only prolonging economic hardship.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
More Stimulus
To treat Washington's spending addiction, the November's election's are the Republicans best chance to stage an intervention. But until then, President Obama and the Democratic congress are determined to keep pushing strung-out state governments to take one more fix. Witness yesterdays 247-161 largely party-line House vote to approve a Senate bill shoveling another $26.1 billion out to state education and Medicaid programs.
Maintaining the salaries and generous benefit plans for members of the teachers unions is indeed a top Democratic priority. That's why $10 billion of the bill's funding is allocated to education, and the money comes with strings that will multiply the benefits for this core Obama constituency.
Specifically, the bill stipulates that Federal funds must supplement , not replace, state spending on education. Also, in each state, next year's spending on elementary and secondary education as a percentage of total state revenues must be equal to or greater than the previous year's level.
Governor Haley Barber did the math and figured the state would be worse off. The $98 million of the needed additional funds would have to be taken from public safety, human services, mental health and other state priorities and given to education. "There is no justification for the federal government hijacking state budgets, but that's exactly what congress has done.
Texas Governor Rick Perry is also apposed to this new "assistance" from the federal government. He understands that one-time payments that force permanently higher state obligations are a windfall for government employees. But if given the choice, taxpayers would just say no.
The other reason is that 1% to 1.5% of the teachers salary is taken out for dues, so, the teachers union will reap nearly $100 million extra dollars from this new stimulus. Much of these dues will flow immediately to endangered democratic candidates in competitive House and Senate races this year.
So, in the name of still another "Stimulus" Democrats are rewarding their own political funders, putting the most fiscally responsible states into even greater distress, and postponing the day of reckoning for spendthrift states.
The only way for voters to stop such fiscal abuse is to run this crowd out of town!
Maintaining the salaries and generous benefit plans for members of the teachers unions is indeed a top Democratic priority. That's why $10 billion of the bill's funding is allocated to education, and the money comes with strings that will multiply the benefits for this core Obama constituency.
Specifically, the bill stipulates that Federal funds must supplement , not replace, state spending on education. Also, in each state, next year's spending on elementary and secondary education as a percentage of total state revenues must be equal to or greater than the previous year's level.
Governor Haley Barber did the math and figured the state would be worse off. The $98 million of the needed additional funds would have to be taken from public safety, human services, mental health and other state priorities and given to education. "There is no justification for the federal government hijacking state budgets, but that's exactly what congress has done.
Texas Governor Rick Perry is also apposed to this new "assistance" from the federal government. He understands that one-time payments that force permanently higher state obligations are a windfall for government employees. But if given the choice, taxpayers would just say no.
The other reason is that 1% to 1.5% of the teachers salary is taken out for dues, so, the teachers union will reap nearly $100 million extra dollars from this new stimulus. Much of these dues will flow immediately to endangered democratic candidates in competitive House and Senate races this year.
So, in the name of still another "Stimulus" Democrats are rewarding their own political funders, putting the most fiscally responsible states into even greater distress, and postponing the day of reckoning for spendthrift states.
The only way for voters to stop such fiscal abuse is to run this crowd out of town!
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Why I cancelled my blog on Newt Gengrich
After listening to a video by (The John Birch Society President) I have completely changed my mind about him having anything to do with the presidency of this country. I was schocked as to how he voted in the past and the organizations he is a member of. If ever we needed a conservative in the White House it is in 2012. The guy we put in there has to be a true conservative, and one who lives and dies by our Constitution. We can't and our country can't afford another mistake! Newt Gengrich is claiming to be a conservative, however he has voted for and is an internationalist.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
It Isn't Working
Another month, another mediocre jobs report from the Department of Labor. This is consistant with the rest of the economic evidence that this is a lackluster recovery that so far is not turning into a durable expansion.
The economy shed 121,000 jobs in July and the number of jobs created in May and June were revised downward to 221,000 lost jobs. The unemployment rate held steady at 9.5% but that does not reflect the fact that the number of discouraged workers is also up 389,000 from a year ago. The employment practices of the government also helped them show better results. They laid off census workers only to rehire them the next week! Private employment did inch up in July by 71,000 positions, with a nice 36,000 in manufacturing jobs, but even that number is deceptive. The vast number of those jobs were in the auto industry.
The problem is if you are still looking for work, because the private sector isn't feeling confident enough to create jobs. The declines in the household survey tend to reflect small business better than does the payroll survey, and small businesses in particular aren't creating new jobs the way they have in other recoveries.
So far, the Obama team has thrown the entire *Keyensian playbook at the economy. We have paid people to buy cars, purchase homes, pay off their mortages, weatherize their homes, and put solar paneling on their roofs. Of course there was the original stimulas package of $862 Billion, though some of that remains unspent. None of it has put America back to work.
The policy lesson is that you can't have a jobs recovery without private confidence and investment. The Obama crowd bet that you could force-feed private investment with government spending and politically directed credit, but the result has been to traumatize business instead. Why would a small business owner hire anyone new if he knows that taxes are going up, health care costs are sure to rise, and the cost of each new employee is uncertain? Nor can you inspire business confidence if you demonize bankers and business.
As the evidence mounts that government spending doesn't create new jobs, the White House insists we need to double down on spending and monetary stimulus. We've now had three years of this policy and it isn't working. Time to try a different economic model, one that worked in the 80's after another severe recession.
Come November we have a chance to try that new model!
*Keyensian: The theory that government must compensate for lack of business investment in times of recession.____________John Maynard Keynes 1936
The economy shed 121,000 jobs in July and the number of jobs created in May and June were revised downward to 221,000 lost jobs. The unemployment rate held steady at 9.5% but that does not reflect the fact that the number of discouraged workers is also up 389,000 from a year ago. The employment practices of the government also helped them show better results. They laid off census workers only to rehire them the next week! Private employment did inch up in July by 71,000 positions, with a nice 36,000 in manufacturing jobs, but even that number is deceptive. The vast number of those jobs were in the auto industry.
The problem is if you are still looking for work, because the private sector isn't feeling confident enough to create jobs. The declines in the household survey tend to reflect small business better than does the payroll survey, and small businesses in particular aren't creating new jobs the way they have in other recoveries.
So far, the Obama team has thrown the entire *Keyensian playbook at the economy. We have paid people to buy cars, purchase homes, pay off their mortages, weatherize their homes, and put solar paneling on their roofs. Of course there was the original stimulas package of $862 Billion, though some of that remains unspent. None of it has put America back to work.
The policy lesson is that you can't have a jobs recovery without private confidence and investment. The Obama crowd bet that you could force-feed private investment with government spending and politically directed credit, but the result has been to traumatize business instead. Why would a small business owner hire anyone new if he knows that taxes are going up, health care costs are sure to rise, and the cost of each new employee is uncertain? Nor can you inspire business confidence if you demonize bankers and business.
As the evidence mounts that government spending doesn't create new jobs, the White House insists we need to double down on spending and monetary stimulus. We've now had three years of this policy and it isn't working. Time to try a different economic model, one that worked in the 80's after another severe recession.
Come November we have a chance to try that new model!
*Keyensian: The theory that government must compensate for lack of business investment in times of recession.____________John Maynard Keynes 1936
Friday, August 6, 2010
When The Economy Started To Decay
In my diary on November 25, 2007 I made this note: Two million homeowners now hold subprime mortages totaling $600 Billion. The adjustible rate increase will be due in eight months.
A subprime loan on a $400,000 home originally was $2200 with a teaser rate of 6.5%, when the adjustible rate kicks in that amount will change to $4000! July of 2008 when those payments came into effect is when our economy started to rapidly decay.
I knew then that sales of Rooms and Covers would be very difficult, I realized my sales were hurting the guys who really needed the money so I resigned on Monday July 21, 2008 after eight wonderful years and my final job. I told the crew that if Republicans won the election This recession would last a couple of years and if not at least six years. If we don't get a change in November of 2010 it will last much longer!
A subprime loan on a $400,000 home originally was $2200 with a teaser rate of 6.5%, when the adjustible rate kicks in that amount will change to $4000! July of 2008 when those payments came into effect is when our economy started to rapidly decay.
I knew then that sales of Rooms and Covers would be very difficult, I realized my sales were hurting the guys who really needed the money so I resigned on Monday July 21, 2008 after eight wonderful years and my final job. I told the crew that if Republicans won the election This recession would last a couple of years and if not at least six years. If we don't get a change in November of 2010 it will last much longer!
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Congress To Send States More Aid
Congress took a decisive step Wednesday toward finalizing a $26 billion bill offering aid to states, a surprise win for Democrats keen to demonstrate they are taking action on an economy showing signs of weakness. The bill, designed to prevent teacher layoffs and help states with their Medicade payments, comes after months of foot dragging. Lawmakers have proven reluctant to spend money on everything from stimulus projects to additional unemployment insurance, amid increasing voter concernabout the size of the u.s. budget deficit.
Wednesday's 61-38 vote in the Senate overcame a filibuster and made final passage in the Senate likely as soon as Thursday August 5th. Nancy Polisi responded by calling back House Members from their summer recess. ( A rare move ) then she will send it back to the presidents desk.
Republicans warned that states were becoming too dependent on federal aid. "For the first time in our history, the federal government is the single largest source of revenue for the states." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel (R.ky.) "When does it end?"
Republicans also complained about the bill's revenue source. The legislation is paid for in part by imposing new limits on foriegn tax credits used by u.s. multinationalists to lower the taxes they pay this country. Republicans said this would drive companies, and jobs, overseas.
When so many states so far in debt come to a Republican House for help when they are in control, I'm afraid the answer will be, Sorry!
Wednesday's 61-38 vote in the Senate overcame a filibuster and made final passage in the Senate likely as soon as Thursday August 5th. Nancy Polisi responded by calling back House Members from their summer recess. ( A rare move ) then she will send it back to the presidents desk.
Republicans warned that states were becoming too dependent on federal aid. "For the first time in our history, the federal government is the single largest source of revenue for the states." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel (R.ky.) "When does it end?"
Republicans also complained about the bill's revenue source. The legislation is paid for in part by imposing new limits on foriegn tax credits used by u.s. multinationalists to lower the taxes they pay this country. Republicans said this would drive companies, and jobs, overseas.
When so many states so far in debt come to a Republican House for help when they are in control, I'm afraid the answer will be, Sorry!
Obama Speaking to AFL-CIO, Calls for Dumping Secret Ballots
Under the card check proposal, if parties can't settle a dispute within 120 days, the dispute would go to an arbitration panel that could impose a contract that is binding for two years. Opponents of the bill say that provision would take away any incentive for either side to negotiate.
The Workforce Institute, an organization opposed to card check, calls the bill the "Employee Forced Choice Act."
"While President Obama continue's to claim out of one side of his mouth that the economy and job-creation are his top priorities, in the next breath he states support for legislation which will result in lost jobs and closed businesses," said Katie Parker, Executive Director of the WFI, in a statement Wednesday. "It is hard to take seriously Obama's claims concerning his committment to getting America's economy hiring again when he has decided to stand with the big labor bosses over job creators."
Obama went on to tell a story which isn't funny to consevatives. He said, "When you are in a car and you want to go forward, you put it in "D" the president said, refercencing "D" for Democrats and "R" for Republicans. "You want to go back in the ditch put it in "R"
The Workforce Institute, an organization opposed to card check, calls the bill the "Employee Forced Choice Act."
"While President Obama continue's to claim out of one side of his mouth that the economy and job-creation are his top priorities, in the next breath he states support for legislation which will result in lost jobs and closed businesses," said Katie Parker, Executive Director of the WFI, in a statement Wednesday. "It is hard to take seriously Obama's claims concerning his committment to getting America's economy hiring again when he has decided to stand with the big labor bosses over job creators."
Obama went on to tell a story which isn't funny to consevatives. He said, "When you are in a car and you want to go forward, you put it in "D" the president said, refercencing "D" for Democrats and "R" for Republicans. "You want to go back in the ditch put it in "R"
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Job killer
There remains a public sentiment and misconception that companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico are comprised of large transnational conglomerates, or "Big Oil" companies. This could not be further from the truth.
The president, media and policy makers in Washington all overlook the most important aspect of oil and gas operations in the deepwaters of the Gulf. Those most threatened by this moratorium are the independent oil and gas operators. Independents produce and drill nearly 50% of all wells and represent 70% of all lease activity in the Gulf of Mexico.
A recent study conducted by IHS Global Insight notes that independent oil and gas companies currently account for about half of the nearly 400,000 jobs, $70 billion in economic values and $20 billion in federal, state and local revenue generated by industry in 2009...In Louisiana alone, the deepwater drilling moratorium could eliminate more than 17,500 jobs in the coming six months. Overall, this detrimental policy will threaten the jobs of more than 200,000 hardworking Americans in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.
_______Don Briggs President Louisiana Oil and Gas
Remembering the suffering caused by the 1986 oil price collapse, Louisiana Association of Business and industry President Dan Juneau wrote:
"The minute I heard the words 'six month moratorium' leave president Obamas lips, My mind went back to the economic miasm of 1986. I realized instantly that if carried through with that policy, it was going to pummel our economy, eliminate thousands of jobs and disrupt the lives of many families... The difference between 1986 and today lies in causation. The damage of Louisiana's economy in the 1980's was brought about by economic factors. The danger today is entirely man made. It is derived soley from a government edict. If there is a bright spot in the currnt crisis, it lies in the fact that a government edict is easier to turn around." Let's lift the ban, reform the liability system and get the Gulf back to work.
The Ban is schudeled to expire november 30. Last week the House of Representaves voted to end the six month ban. The fate of such legislation is uncertain. A senate vote ha ben postponed until September.
The president, media and policy makers in Washington all overlook the most important aspect of oil and gas operations in the deepwaters of the Gulf. Those most threatened by this moratorium are the independent oil and gas operators. Independents produce and drill nearly 50% of all wells and represent 70% of all lease activity in the Gulf of Mexico.
A recent study conducted by IHS Global Insight notes that independent oil and gas companies currently account for about half of the nearly 400,000 jobs, $70 billion in economic values and $20 billion in federal, state and local revenue generated by industry in 2009...In Louisiana alone, the deepwater drilling moratorium could eliminate more than 17,500 jobs in the coming six months. Overall, this detrimental policy will threaten the jobs of more than 200,000 hardworking Americans in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.
_______Don Briggs President Louisiana Oil and Gas
Remembering the suffering caused by the 1986 oil price collapse, Louisiana Association of Business and industry President Dan Juneau wrote:
"The minute I heard the words 'six month moratorium' leave president Obamas lips, My mind went back to the economic miasm of 1986. I realized instantly that if carried through with that policy, it was going to pummel our economy, eliminate thousands of jobs and disrupt the lives of many families... The difference between 1986 and today lies in causation. The damage of Louisiana's economy in the 1980's was brought about by economic factors. The danger today is entirely man made. It is derived soley from a government edict. If there is a bright spot in the currnt crisis, it lies in the fact that a government edict is easier to turn around." Let's lift the ban, reform the liability system and get the Gulf back to work.
The Ban is schudeled to expire november 30. Last week the House of Representaves voted to end the six month ban. The fate of such legislation is uncertain. A senate vote ha ben postponed until September.
My Liberal Friend
This morning while having coffee with my liberal friend (over 20 years) I asked him the following question: "What program has the current administration Initiated that has the approval of the majority of Americans?"
He could not answer the question. Why? Because there is not one program the Obama administration has shoved through that has the approval of the majority of Americans.
With the combination of George Soros money, the labor unions, the trial lawyers, the Hollyood left and the anti-war left enabled the Democrats a sense of momentum. They were elated to have a new president that would finally agree to nearly all their wishes whether they were popular or not. So what we have now is 10% unemployment. Small businesses aren't hiring because they are afraid of what kind of regulations and taxes that will come. And then of course there is the 13 Trillion dollar debt!
Meanwhile absolutely nothing has been done to stimulate new jobs. Government jobs are being added but that doesn't help the economy. Unions have been paid off (General Motors Board) The government has sued the state of Az. for trying to do a job that the government has failed to do. The states are refusing to believe the government can force people to purchase health insurance. The supreme court will probably decide if this is unconstitional. Let's pray they do!
He could not answer the question. Why? Because there is not one program the Obama administration has shoved through that has the approval of the majority of Americans.
With the combination of George Soros money, the labor unions, the trial lawyers, the Hollyood left and the anti-war left enabled the Democrats a sense of momentum. They were elated to have a new president that would finally agree to nearly all their wishes whether they were popular or not. So what we have now is 10% unemployment. Small businesses aren't hiring because they are afraid of what kind of regulations and taxes that will come. And then of course there is the 13 Trillion dollar debt!
Meanwhile absolutely nothing has been done to stimulate new jobs. Government jobs are being added but that doesn't help the economy. Unions have been paid off (General Motors Board) The government has sued the state of Az. for trying to do a job that the government has failed to do. The states are refusing to believe the government can force people to purchase health insurance. The supreme court will probably decide if this is unconstitional. Let's pray they do!
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Is LDL (bad chlosestrol) a factor for the young?
If you think you are too young to worry about your cholestrol, new research suggests you might think again.
In a 20 year study involving 3258 people between 18 and 30 years old, researchers found that the accumulative effect of even modestly abnormal cholesterol heightens your risk of developing telltale signs of heart desease by age 45.
Current national guidlines call for getting a fasting cholesterol test every five yearsbeginning at the age of 20.
Regular exercise and healthy diet should be the main stragety for achieving Cholestrol targets. It took 75 years for my cholestrol to build up to a heart attack. Had I kept my LDL below 100 I may have avoided it!
In a 20 year study involving 3258 people between 18 and 30 years old, researchers found that the accumulative effect of even modestly abnormal cholesterol heightens your risk of developing telltale signs of heart desease by age 45.
Current national guidlines call for getting a fasting cholesterol test every five yearsbeginning at the age of 20.
Regular exercise and healthy diet should be the main stragety for achieving Cholestrol targets. It took 75 years for my cholestrol to build up to a heart attack. Had I kept my LDL below 100 I may have avoided it!
Will Virginia's Law Suit Help?
Virginia's lawsuit challenging the Obama Administration's Health-Care law cleared it's first legal hurdle Monday as a federal judge ruled the law raises a host of complex congressional issues.
Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli claimed in the lawsuit that congress doesn't have the authority to require citizens to buy health insurance or pay a penality.
Hopefully, our somewhat conservative supreme court will decide against this unfair law. If they don't just imagine what other things the government insist we buy or pay a penality. Electric cars? Solar systems?
Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli claimed in the lawsuit that congress doesn't have the authority to require citizens to buy health insurance or pay a penality.
Hopefully, our somewhat conservative supreme court will decide against this unfair law. If they don't just imagine what other things the government insist we buy or pay a penality. Electric cars? Solar systems?
Monday, August 2, 2010
Why Should We Extend Bush Tax Cuts?
"In todays economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reductions even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit. Reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues."
President John F. Kennedy.1965
Senator Kerry bought a seven million dollar yacht in Rhode Island instead of Mass. where he is the senior senator and champion of higher taxes on the rich. He avoided $437,000 in state taxes and annual excise tax of $70,000.
The U.S. went into double-dip recession in 1938, unemployment rose to 20%. The Democratic Government raised personal top marginal income taxes from 24% to 83%. It's no wonder why the great depression lasted so long. Higher taxes on the rich create the very poverty and unemployment that is used to justify their presence.
The Obama administration will probably extent the Bush tax cuts, however they won't extend them for the rich. Therefore a tax on those who create the jobs!
President John F. Kennedy.1965
Senator Kerry bought a seven million dollar yacht in Rhode Island instead of Mass. where he is the senior senator and champion of higher taxes on the rich. He avoided $437,000 in state taxes and annual excise tax of $70,000.
The U.S. went into double-dip recession in 1938, unemployment rose to 20%. The Democratic Government raised personal top marginal income taxes from 24% to 83%. It's no wonder why the great depression lasted so long. Higher taxes on the rich create the very poverty and unemployment that is used to justify their presence.
The Obama administration will probably extent the Bush tax cuts, however they won't extend them for the rich. Therefore a tax on those who create the jobs!
Petreus Changes the Rules!
McCrystals rules of ingagement preventing soldiers from shelling a structure when the enemy is suspected of occupying caused problems soldiers had trouble understanding. Petreus changed that and said hit them! We will see progress that we saw in Iraq now that he is in charge.
Rangel Will Quit!
Charles Rangel will retire. He is 80 years old and 9 of his democratic friends have asked him to. As we get closer to a public trial which would embarass the Democrats he will have others joining the 9.
By quitting, Rangel will save some dignity (very important to him) and help his party avoid a public trial which they can't afford this near the election.
By quitting, Rangel will save some dignity (very important to him) and help his party avoid a public trial which they can't afford this near the election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)