Pages

Monday, November 30, 2009

Vermont Rep. proposes sensible gun law

Note: Unconfirmed, but it's a wonderful idea, even if not true.

Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont 's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.


Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.

Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only affirming the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as a clear mandate to do so. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals.

Vermont 's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent." Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state . it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way.

Click Here to Comment


Technorati Tags: , , ,

Saturday, November 28, 2009

White House takes on Charles Krauthammer,
but loses the fight

The clear thinking columnist Charles Krauthammer recently picked apart the odious bills supposedly designed to save America from a health care system run amok, and offered the common sense changes that would improve what is already the best health care system in the world, its problems notwithstanding.

This column, titled Kill the Bills. Do Health Reform Right, deserves a read, whether you like the health care reform bills or not.

Within several hours of his column being published, the White House had posted a response, penned by Dan Pfeiffer, on the White House Blog. Mr. Pfeiffer is set to replace Anita Dunn at the end of the month as communications director, the second change in that position in the short Obama presidency. (Does anyone think it’s strange for the White House to respond to opinion columns?)

Reality Check: Column Ignores Facts about Health Reform,” supposedly sets Mr. Krauthammer straight on what is in the bills he so effectively criticizes.

Mr. Pfeiffer: “In today's Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer takes great pains to paint a bleak picture of health care reform as ‘monstrous,’ ‘overregulated,’ and rife with ‘arbitrary bureaucratic inventions.’ The columnist's argument may be cogent and well-written, but it is wholly inaccurate.”

Mr. Pfeiffer continues: “Krauthammer describes a ‘better choice’ for health reform as having three elements: tort reform, interstate purchasing and taxing employee benefits. All three elements are part of the current effort."

Really? Is it possible that Mr. Krauthammer simply missed those elements in the House and Senate bills?

Mr. Pfeiffer then enlightens us on the “actual” contents of these legislative misadventures:

“President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum directing the Secretary of HHS to move forward with an initiative to give states and health systems the opportunity to apply for medical liability demonstration projects. Section 2531 of the House bill also includes a voluntary state incentive grants program to encourage states to develop alternatives to traditional malpractice litigation,” he crows.

But Mr. Pfeiffer, giving the states the “opportunity” to apply for a demonstration project, and “encouraging” states to develop alternatives is not the same thing as actually doing something about a broken tort system that adds millions to the cost of health care each year.

Next.

“Section 1333 of the Senate bill,” Mr. Pfeiffer informs us, “allows for interstate health care choice compacts.”

“Allow[ing] for interstate health care choice compacts” is not the same as putting them into effect, Mr. Pfeiffer, as almost everyone who is not a liberal Democrat recognizes.

This sort of mealy-mouthed excuse-making and equivocation is the hallmark of the Obama administration and its minions, who are currently in way over their heads.

Do they simply not possess the intellectual ability to fully understand these issues? Or, do they just not care?

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags:
, , ,

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

U.S. is soft on terrorism

On September 12, 2001, Americans were nearly unanimous in their belief that terrorism was a very real and serious threat to our country. September 11, 2009, eight years later, after not only no new terrorist attacks on the United States, but some thwarted terrorist activities, we have grown complacent on terrorism, and we have adopted attitudes along the way that are so soft on terrorism that the likelihood of an attack inside the United States is as great today as it was in 2001.

Since the eighth anniversary of 9-11 two months ago we may, in fact, have already experienced another attack, the Ft. Hood massacre. There is substantial evidence that when Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan (allegedly) opened fire on his fellow soldiers, he was motivated by the same irrational hatred as the 19 murderous Muslim animals that hijacked four airliners and crashed two into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon. Thankfully, the fourth was brought down by rebellious passengers in a Pennsylvania field short of its intended target in Washington, DC.

The evidence against Maj. Hasan: He is a Muslim; he was observed by medical students under his tutelage giving an hour-long lecture on the Koranic view of military service, jihad and war, and discussed the punishment for those who don’t believe in Islam; numerous reports suggest that he believed the Koran compelled him to destroy Christian and Jewish infidels; he was opposed to being sent to the Middle East where U.S. forces are fighting Muslim terrorists because he might have to take up arms against his Muslim brothers; he had been in communication with a notorious Yemen-based jihad propagandist; and he screamed “Allahu Akbar” as he murdered his fellow soldiers.

It seems irrefutable that Maj. Nidal Hasan shares the same ideology as the 9-11 terrorists and is himself a terrorist.

But these days, the horrors of 2001 seem a distant memory for many Americans, who don’t think the threat is real anymore. This “soft on terrorism” attitude seeks to brand Maj. Hasan as merely “crazy,” and its adherents twist themselves into knots pretending he is something other than what he really is.

They maintain that Dr. Hasan was afflicted with a disorder known as secondary post-traumatic stress disorder. “As a psychiatrist he had heard too many stories of misery from returning troops, and he just snapped,” they protest.

Now, there is a second disorder being discussed, one that affects people who are about to go into a war zone: pre-traumatic stress disorder: they snap at the mere prospect of encountering traumatic events. Such equivocation has deadly consequences, as the Ft. Hood terrorist attack clearly shows.

Now, we are about to bring four terrorists connected to the 9-11 attacks – including the architect of the attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed – from the Guantanamo Bay military detention facility in Cuba to New York, and instead of trying them in military courts, as we have done with enemy combatants for decades, the United States government will try them in Federal District Court as if they had merely killed a Bald Eagle, or entered the country illegally (except we don’t try illegal aliens anymore).

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder defends this plan by saying that by giving terrorists the protections of the U.S. Constitution we show the world that we aren’t the crude savages that George Bush made us appear. Our system of government is so superior to all the others, the theory goes, that we will give even murderous terrorist vermin the benefits of our Constitution, the same as our citizens receive.

However, in a civilian court disclosing sensitive intelligence information through the discovery and cross-examination processes is likely, which means sensitive information will most certainly fall into the hands of other terrorists, as occurred in the trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. A list of 200 unindicted co-conspirators, that included Osama bin Laden, had to be provided to defense counsel. According to the judge at that trial, Michael Mukasey, "Within 10 days, a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum, letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered."

As columnist Charles Krauthammer noted, “apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York – what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the courtroom, making [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] a martyr and turning the judge, jury and spectators into fresh victims? – it will endanger U.S. security.”

All Muslims are not terrorists, of course, and all terrorists are not Muslims. However, the current brand of terrorism is overwhelmingly perpetrated by radical Muslims whose idea of Islam is to kill infidels like Americans and Jews, and our challenge is to tell who the radicals are before they can act.

Ladies and gentlemen, we must be less concerned with high-minded ideals like how the U.S. is perceived around the world and by our enemies, and a lot more concerned with protecting American citizens and our national security. Trying these terrorists in a federal district court is reckless and dangerous, and clearly puts our safety and security at risk.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags:
, , ,

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Senate votes against the American people,
moves the health care take-over bill to debate


A 60-39 vote moved the monstrous Reid health care take-over bill to the next phase. The rare Saturday session was a first round fight to pass the bill in the full Senate.
This spells trouble for freedom-loving Americans, as bills that make it to debate ultimately pass the full Senate 90 percent of the time.


All Democrats and Independents Joe Lieberman (CT) and Bernie Sanders (VT) voted for the measure, and all Republicans voted no, except for George Voinovich (OH)


Sens. Blanche Lincoln (AR) and Mary Landrieu (LA) waited until today to say they would vote yes for a floor debate. Sen. Ben Nelson (NE) announced Friday he would support moving the bill forward, but all cautioned that their votes should not be construed as support for the bill in its current form.
"It is a vote to move forward to continue the good and essential and important and imperative work that is under way," Landrieu said on the Senate floor. "I've decided that there's enough significant reforms and safeguards in this bill to move forward but more work needs to be done."

Lincoln said she still would support a filibuster if the so-called "public option," a government-run insurance plan, remains in the health care bill.


The Dishonor Roll, alphabetical, by name
:

Akaka (D-HI), Yea

Alexander (R-TN), Nay

Barrasso (R-WY), Nay

Baucus (D-MT), Yea

Bayh (D-IN), Yea

Begich (D-AK), Yea

Bennet (D-CO), Yea

Bennett (R-UT), Nay

Bingaman (D-NM), Yea

Bond (R-MO), Nay

Boxer (D-CA), Yea

Brown (D-OH), Yea

Brownback (R-KS), Nay

Bunning (R-KY), Nay

Burr (R-NC), Nay

Burris (D-IL), Yea

Byrd (D-WV), Yea

Cantwell (D-WA), Yea

Cardin (D-MD), Yea

Carper (D-DE), Yea

Casey (D-PA), Yea

Chambliss (R-GA), Nay

Coburn (R-OK), Nay

Cochran (R-MS), Nay

Collins (R-ME), Nay

Conrad (D-ND), Yea

Corker (R-TN), Nay

Cornyn (R-TX), Nay

Crapo (R-ID), Nay

DeMint (R-SC), Nay

Dodd (D-CT), Yea

Dorgan (D-ND), Yea

Durbin (D-IL), Yea

Ensign (R-NV), Nay

Enzi (R-WY), Nay

Feingold (D-WI), Yea

Feinstein (D-CA), Yea

Franken (D-MN), Yea

Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea

Graham (R-SC), Nay

Grassley (R-IA), Nay

Gregg (R-NH), Nay

Hagan (D-NC), Yea

Harkin (D-IA), Yea

Hatch (R-UT), Nay

Hutchison (R-TX), Nay

Inhofe (R-OK), Nay

Inouye (D-HI), Yea

Isakson (R-GA), Nay

Johanns (R-NE), Nay

Johnson (D-SD), Yea

Kaufman (D-DE), Yea

Kerry (D-MA), Yea

Kirk (D-MA), Yea

Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea

Kohl (D-WI), Yea

Kyl (R-AZ), Nay

Landrieu (D-LA), Yea

Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea

Leahy (D-VT), Yea

LeMieux (R-FL), Nay

Levin (D-MI), Yea

Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea

Lincoln (D-AR), Yea

Lugar (R-IN), Nay

McCain (R-AZ), Nay

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

McConnell (R-KY), Nay

Menendez (D-NJ), Yea

Merkley (D-OR), Yea

Mikulski (D-MD), Yea

Murkowski (R-AK), Nay

Murray (D-WA), Yea

Nelson (D-FL), Yea

Nelson (D-NE), Yea

Pryor (D-AR), Yea

Reed (D-RI), Yea

Reid (D-NV), Yea

Risch (R-ID), Nay

Roberts (R-KS), Nay

Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea

Sanders (I-VT), Yea

Schumer (D-NY), Yea

Sessions (R-AL), Nay

Shaheen (D-NH), Yea

Shelby (R-AL), Nay

Snowe (R-ME), Nay

Specter (D-PA), Yea

Stabenow (D-MI), Yea

Tester (D-MT), Yea

Thune (R-SD), Nay

Udall (D-CO), Yea

Udall (D-NM), Yea

Vitter (R-LA), Nay

Voinovich (R-OH), Not Voting

Warner (D-VA), Yea

Webb (D-VA), Yea

Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea

Wicker (R-MS), Nay

Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Click Here To Comment


Technorati Tags:
, , ,

Corresponding with Congress
on Health Care Reform

Letters sent by email to U.S. Senators from Virginia Mark Warner and Jim Webb on the Senate Health Care Reform bill:
Dear Senator Warner,
I am writing concerning the health care reform effort. As one of your constituents, I want to make a few comments, with the expectation that you, personally, will read them and consider them in your evaluation of plans to legislate reform.
I have read the comments on your Web site regarding reforming the current health care system. You are correct that competition is an essential element in any health care system, and that single element precludes a system that has any more government intervention than currently exists.
As a Director of a not-for-profit community hospital for nearly 20 years, I am acutely aware of the problems government causes for health care providers, such as reimbursements from Medicare/Medicaid that are substantially less that billed charges, and the higher costs in the effort to satisfy government requirements.
Fewer government requirements are in order, not more. For that reason alone, the bill that Sen. Reid is about to offer is undeserving of consideration, and must be rejected immediately.
Furthermore, before we do something drastic to the existing system, which, despite its problems, provides the highest level of care in the world, we need to be honest about how many Americans are without health insurance because of its cost. That number is a fraction of the 47 million that we so often hear about. Illegal aliens and other non-citizens, and those who choose not to buy insurance, are not part of the problem; American taxpayers cannot be burdened with paying for insurance for these people.
You are also correct that we must encourage wellness and prevention.
All of the important reforms can be accomplished through legislation that is a fraction of the size of the 2,000 page bill about to be considered, and for far less money. If not, the Senate should admit defeat, and leave things as they are.
It is also compulsory that reform be a true bi-partisan effort, as a matter of good governance. That is not the case so far; there has been no discernable honest effort to produce a bill Republicans can support.
And last, but hardly least: The Constitution of the United States does not empower Congress or the federal government to take charge of, or even to substantially modify the private, free market health care system. You and every other public servant have sworn to uphold the Constitution, and it will be a breach of that oath to vote for a measure that violates the constitutional protections Americans enjoy from an over-reaching federal government. I urge you to give this point careful consideration.
I am counting on you, as my elected representative to vote down this current unconstitutional measure, and any other one that may be brought forth.
Sincerely,
James H. Shott


Dear Senator Webb,

I appreciate your commitment to improve the accessibility and affordability of health care for all Americans. As one of your constituents, I want to make a few comments, with the expectation that you, personally, will read them and consider them in your evaluation of plans to legislate reform.

Health care costs are a substantial problem. Not least among the causes of these high prices is the degree of government intervention in what ought to be a fairly open free market.

As a Director of a not-for-profit community hospital for nearly 20 years, I am acutely aware of the problems government causes for health care providers, such as reimbursements from Medicare/Medicaid that are substantially less that billed charges, and the higher costs in the effort to satisfy government requirements.

Before we do something drastic to the existing system, which, despite its problems, provides the highest level of care in the world, we need to be honest about how many Americans are without health insurance because of its cost. That number is a fraction of the 47 million that we so often hear about. Illegal aliens and other non-citizens, and those who choose not to buy insurance, are not part of the problem; American taxpayers cannot be burdened with paying for insurance for these people.

You commented that “Our nation’s continued economic recovery would be advanced by meaningful and effective health care reform.” It can also be wrecked by thoughtless and over-reaching efforts by the federal government. That is the path we are currently running down.

You also said: “Such reform must emphatically be reasonable in scope, cost, and impact. It is important for us to be highly deliberative on this matter of importance to the lives and livelihoods of so many Americans.”

Senator, the bill Sen. Reid is about to offer up, is a gross breach of those tenets.

I urge you to give this point careful consideration: The Constitution of the United States does not empower Congress or the federal government to take charge of, or even to substantially modify the private, free market health care system. You and every other public servant have sworn to uphold the Constitution, and it will be a breach of that oath to vote for a measure that violates the constitutional protections Americans enjoy from an over-reaching federal government.

I am counting on you, as my elected representative to vote down this current unconstitutional measure, and any other one that may be brought forth.

Sincerely,

James H. Shott

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Congressional malfeasance in the pursuit
of health care reform



After much wailing and gnashing of teeth, private meetings in the back rooms of the Capitol, murky obfuscation, misleading statements and outright mistruths, and other varieties of objectionable behavior, the Speaker of the House of Representatives finally maneuvered the enormously expensive and power-grabbing health care reform bill through to passage by a thin 220-215 vote.
True, the exuberance displayed when the 218th vote was cast, marking passage, was untoward, but the majority party seemed not to care. And surely they were joking when they claimed a lone Republican “aye” vote made the effort “bi-partisan.”
Nancy Pelosi’s health bill (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages – four reams of paper long, stands about a foot high and weighs more than 20 pounds. It is so long and complex that no one understands it and hardly any of the lawmakers had read it. None of which stopped them from passing it, of course. This sort of irresponsible behavior would get a lot of people fired, but not our elected representatives.
However, in defense of the gargantuan size of the bill, a measure with fewer pages would be insufficient to contain the entire collection of nightmarish features of this unconstitutional power grab.
The Wall Street Journal published an article earlier this month, “What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says,” that tells the public what the House leadership would not tell us. It was written by Betsy McCaughey, chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, and a former Lt. Governor of New York State.
From the article: Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later. Payments for most individuals will range somewhere between 17 and 20 percent of their pre-tax income, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home," which the Congressional Budget Office said were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago, if cost control is a priority, and it will be.
It gets worse.
A letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) to Michigan Republican Dave Camp, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee, confirmed that failure to buy health insurance makes you a criminal: “Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
“Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.
“Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.”
It is difficult to imagine people who call themselves Americans putting criminal penalties in a health care bill, or voting for such a bill. And it’s difficult to understand people who call themselves Americans supporting such outrageous and anti-American notions, even if they favor health care reform.
Whether or not these command-and-control measures are part of whatever bill Congress ultimately passes, if it passes one, it should anger every true American – Democrat, Republican and politically non-aligned alike – that such treachery would even be considered.
It has yet to be shown where in the United States Constitution the Congress, the President or anyone else has the power to take over the country’s health care system, or to mandate that citizens buy anything. And what’s worse, Congress seems totally unconcerned about constitutionality.
Forcing people to buy an expensive insurance policy they can’t read until long after they’ve been forced to buy it, then making criminals out of them if they don’t comply is reminiscent of the sort of heavy-handed oppression foisted on the Colonies by King George III.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking to The Heritage Foundation's President's Club last week, said that the government structure designed by the Founding Fathers is the most unique and powerful feature of our Constitution, the element that sets it above other governing documents.
The Constitution's limits on government power, he emphasized, ensure that the protections of the Bill of Rights are honored. Even the Soviet Union had a robust bill of rights, he said, but since the rest of the USSR's constitution placed no limits on government powers, the bill of rights was essentially meaningless. Our Constitution is different, Justice Scalia said.
But our elected representatives no longer recognize or honor its authority.


Technorati Tags: , , ,

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Positive GDP number is misleading

Last month’s Gross Domestic Product advance report showing positive productivity of 3.5 percent was certainly one piece of good news in this time of financial strife, the first positive GDP figure in over a year. Those that believe that the recession has ended are emboldened by this figure, since one measure of the end of a recession is two consecutive quarters of positive growth.

Another positive sign is the performance of the stock market, which has gained back about 45 percent of its losses since the financial crisis began. A recovery in the stock market, economists tell us, precedes the general economic recovery by six months to a year.

One not-so-good number, however, is the unemployment figure, which has risen again, and now sits above 10 percent for the first time in 26 years.

In selling his economic stimulus package to the nation President Barack Obama said that it would keep the unemployment rate at about 7 percent, whereas without the stimulus, unemployment would hit 8.8 percent by the last fiscal quarter of 2010.

Obviously, the stimulus failed to stop job loss. And, when you look beneath the surface of the GDP figure, the stimulus has produced little if any significant improvement in productivity.

Economic writer Mike Shedlock wrote about “how bad this all looks once you break down the numbers. The government sloshed trillions around and yet disposable income is down, jobs are horrendously weak, and the only reason GDP rose is wasteful government spending, cash-for-clunkers and extremely unaffordable housing tax credits whose effect is soon going to start diminishing even though the program was just extended.”

Almost half of the 3.5 percent positive GDP number (1.66 percent) came from the Cash-for-Clunkers program, which used stimulus money to incentivize car buying decisions and moved purchases that normally would occur over several months forward to an earlier time period. Consequently, since that initial surge, auto sales have dropped off.

Without the auto sales effect, GDP was still positive, although a more modest 1.9 percent, and some of that was due to the increase in government spending of 7.9 percent. So, the positive figure is far less impressive than it seems. And, the GDP advance report will be revised: a second report will follow at the end of November and the final report at the end of December. It may go up, but it might go down.

Looking ahead, the economic activity that was shifted forward by the stimulus program has prompted some economists to predict a return to negative GDP in the fourth quarter, which would reset the calculation for when the recession is over.

Something to think about is the similarity of what is going on today to what happened after the 1929 stock market crash. It is commonly thought and sometimes reported that the cause of the Great Depression of the 1930s was the market crash in October of 1929. Walter Williams, columnist and Professor of Economics at George Mason University, asks: “How could that be? By April 1930, the stock market had recovered to its pre-crash level. What is not taught in history books is the Great Depression was caused by a massive government failure,” he states.

Dr. Williams goes on to blame actions by the Federal Reserve Bank that led to the contraction of the money supply by 25 percent, the passage of the Smoot-Hawley Act in June 1930 in the name of saving jobs, which increased U.S. tariffs by more than 50 percent, causing a collapse of world trade when other nations retaliated against the U.S. action.

He cites other missteps that include the imposition of the largest tax increase in U.S. history (at the time) that raised the top tax rate on income from 25 percent to 63 percent, and then the New Deal legislation that heavily regulated the economy and extended the Great Depression to after World War II.

“Have today's politicians and their economic advisers learned anything from yesteryear's policy that turned what would have been a short, sharp downturn in the economy into a 16-year affair?” Dr. Williams asks. His answer: they have learned very little.

Dr. Williams echoes Johns Hopkins University economics professor and Cato Institute Fellow Steve Hanke’s belief that the chief enabler of both the Great Depression and our latest economic downturn is the Federal Reserve Bank. Dr. Hanke believes the Fed views itself as America's “systemic risk regulator,” but he sees this as exactly backward: The Federal Reserve is the systemic risk.

Today we see obscene levels of government spending, with the stimulus bill and other spending measures increasing the deficit by one trillion dollars. We watch helplessly as the Democrat-controlled Congress works overtime to jam through highly controversial and largely unpopular measures like health care reform and cap and trade. That means even more government spending; raising taxes on businesses that will stymie job creation; and skyrocketing energy costs, which will raise the cost of goods and services for everyone. And the Fed goes merrily along unchecked.

It’s déjà vu all over again, folks. Can we make the same mistakes as our predecessors and expect a different result?

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Sunday, November 08, 2009

Did your Representative vote for
the health care takeover?

Last night the House of Representatives passed H R 3962, the 2,000-page Affordable Health Care for America Act, perhaps the most intrusive piece of legislation ever enacted.

This bill was the most controversial in recent memory, and may not have had even a scant majority of Americans favoring it.

In any event, no measure that is this controversial, no measure with this much opposition ought to even come to a vote in a legislative body that is charged with representing the wishes of its constituents.

Every member of the House that voted for this bill should be targeted for removal from office, either on Election Day, or for those with legal or ethical breaches, through other legal means.

Did your Congressman/Congresswoman vote for the health care bill? Here is the list:

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Klein (FL)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luján
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth


Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Saturday, November 07, 2009

The Twenty-eighth Amendment

When the people fear their government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. - Thomas Jefferson

Clearly, we are nearer to the former of Mr. Jefferson’s options than to the latter, but we must begin to move as quickly as possible toward the latter and away from the former.


Our betters in government are in the habit of enjoying special circumstances for themselves – a special retirement system, for example – and under current language they will not be subject to any of the provisions of the new health care system Democrats have crafted alone in back rooms, should one pass the House and Senate. Whatever the special provisions of the health care bills, these “special” people – the ones we allow to go to Washington to work for us – will have something different, something better.


This is unacceptable, and intolerable in the United States.


With that in mind, the following proposed Constitutional Amendment represents an idea which has been modified from its original form (circulating in an email), and which may require additional modification, but which outlines a concept that ought not to need to be specifically addressed with an amendment, but for which there is a strong need, to remind our public servants of their responsibilities.


Amendment XXVIII

The duty of the President of the United States of America, the Members of the Congress of the United States of America, and every employee of the government of the People of the United States of America being to provide maximum freedom for the People so that they may pursue their own personal goals and enjoy the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the Congress shall make no law or regulation or policy or other contrivance that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not also apply equally to the President, the Senators and Representatives and other government employees at all levels of federal service; nor shall Congress make any law or regulation or policy or other contrivance that applies to the President, the Senators and Representatives and other government employees at all levels of federal service that does not also apply equally to the citizens of the United States.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Friday, November 06, 2009

Congress committing treason?


The House of Representatives, its members and its leaders have not quite gotten the message. They still are bent on enacting health care reform that is everything but health care reform.

It is the most egregious act ever undertaken by any Congress in the history of the republic. It is the most substantial step toward statism and socialistic government yet attempted by anyone. It is, many say, a step toward government control from which the country cannot recover. It is intolerable and unacceptable, and if it passes we are no longer any of the things that have made this country exceptional in the history of the world; we are just one more nation under control of its government.

Whether this measure will have effects that are this serious remains to be seen, perhaps, but no objective person can sanely argue that this process is open and honest, or that it is what our Founders had in mind when they put their lives on the line to establish a republic that limited the degree to which government can control the people.

It is time not for words, but for action. Every Representative must be notified before Saturday’s vote that if they vote for this abomination, the writer will actively work for their removal from office. And then follow through on that pledge.

Call your Representative NOW!

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Thursday, November 05, 2009

A Letter to Representative Rick Boucher

Dear Representative Boucher,

I am writing concerning the health care reform effort.

I have read your statement on the issue, and am pleased that you find significant problems with the current legislative drafts.

As one of your constituents, I want to make a few comments, with the expectation that you, personally, will read them and consider them in your evaluation of plans to legislate reform.

First, I believe you need to amend your estimate of those without health insurance to include only those who cannot afford it, and leave out those who opt to not purchase it, and those illegal aliens or other non-citizens, who are not the responsibility of the American people, who will have to foot the bill. That number is lower than 20 million.

I appreciate that you recognize the problems caused by Medicare underpayments to providers; I appreciate your skepticism of government-run health care; and I appreciate your desire to actually include the minority party in forming a sensible plan. One-party health care reform is simply unacceptable and intolerable on its face.

Some simple steps can be taken to make a significant difference in the health care landscape, and these steps must be taken before Congress wrecks the present health care system, which, despite its problems, is the best in the world in many respects. Those steps include: tort reform, to reduce frivolous lawsuits, which drive up costs; separate insurance coverage from employment; make policies portable; allow insurers to compete in every state. One more step is to remove regulatory barriers that will allow the free market to correct the problems.

And last, but hardly least: The Constitution of the United States does not empower Congress or the federal government to take charge of, or even to substantially modify the private, free market health care system. You and every other public servant have sworn to uphold the Constitution, and it will be a breach of that oath to vote for a measure that violates the constitutional protections of Americans from an over-reaching federal government. I urge you to give this point careful consideration.

I am counting on you, as my elected Representative to vote down this current over-reaching and unconstitutional measure, and any other one that may be brought forth.

Sincerely,

James H. Shott

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags:
, , ,

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

What’s behind the manic rush to pass
dangerous, intrusive legislation?

Belief in manmade climate change has dropped off in recent years and support for cap and trade measures also is losing steam. This latter trend is picking up speed as it becomes more obvious that climate scientists are sharply divided on whether humans play any role in global warming/global cooling/climate change. However, the U.S. Congress races blindly on with plans to enact sweeping, intrusive legislation, undaunted by either the lack of convincing evidence that human activity affects the environment, or the public’s increasing disaffection with this legislation.

While a recent CNN poll found that 60 percent support cap and trade measures, it neglected to mention to participants that these measures will raise energy and other costs, instead talking only about companies paying penalties for their greenhouse-gas emissions.

But when consumers realize their pocketbooks will take a hit, they have a different view, as shown by a poll commissioned by NBC and The Wall Street Journal. The survey asked half the respondents: “Would you approve or disapprove of a proposal that would require companies to reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming, even if it would mean higher utility bills for consumers to pay for the changes?” This question garnered only 48 percent approval when respondents realized their costs would rise, while 43 percent disapproved, a significant change from April, when 53 percent approved and 40 percent disapproved.

The other half was asked questions about the importance of greenhouse-gas pollution.
Only 29 percent regard it as a serious problem requiring immediate action (down from 34 percent in 2007), and 29 percent also believe we don’t know enough and need more research (up from 25 percent in 2007). These changes in public perception of this issue occurred despite the one-sided coverage of the scientific debate on manmade climate change.

Each house of Congress has its own version of this legislative misadventure, crafted in Capital backrooms in meetings to which the minority party was not invited, the 946-page Waxman-Markey bill in the House and the 821-page Kerry-Boxer bill in the Senate.

During climate change hearings Montana Democrat Sen. Max Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, commented that “we cannot afford the unmitigated impacts of climate change but we also cannot afford the unmitigated effects of legislation.” Like so many in Congress Sen. Baucus is unaware that human-caused climate change is a tenuous claim, at best, so his comment is only half right; we cannot afford the unmitigated effects of this legislation.

Putting that concern into practical terms, Steve Roberts, president of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, which represents businesses providing jobs to a majority of West Virginia workers, said that while the administration and Congress have put several anti-business measures into effect, the greatest threat to his state lies in the cap and trade bills. Speaking to the Rotary Club of Bluefield, W.Va., he said that in addition to raising the cost of electricity, the Waxman-Markey Bill contains 1,000 costly new mandates and 420 expensive resolutions that employers will have to implement, if the bill becomes law.

Mr. Roberts believes it is possible to craft legislation to address carbon pollution that would actually do something about it, but Waxman-Markey will have no measurable impact on the environment. It will, however, have a substantial negative impact on the economy of West Virginia, as well as neighboring southwestern Virginia, and other states whose economy depends upon energy.

Another leader whose organization represents businesses providing jobs to Americans – nine million jobs, to be precise – is Jack Gerard, President of the American Petroleum Institute. “Like the House climate change bill,” he said, “the Senate’s Kerry-Boxer bill would hurt our economy by killing American jobs, increasing energy costs and undermining our nation’s energy security.” He said that multiple studies show that more than two million jobs, net of any so-called “green” jobs created, will be lost, and rising direct and indirect energy costs will hit everyone in the pocketbook.

“The Kerry-Boxer bill would undermine America’s energy security,” he continued. “Under the bill, many refining and related jobs would likely move offshore to countries that have lower costs because they do not have similar climate change laws. Americans would be more dependent on foreign sources of gasoline and other refined products. … We should not be sending any of these jobs overseas.”

The Energy Information Administration analysis of the House bill predicts gasoline prices may exceed $5 a gallon and diesel prices may exceed $5.60. With our economy struggling to recover from a historical recession, now is not the time to enact job-killing legislation, or measures that will raise the cost of living for the American people.

Job creation will suffer if businesses spend more of their money on higher taxes and higher operational costs, and everyday Americans can’t buy more products to spur the economy if they don’t have a job, or they have less to spend on wants and needs because the costs of energy and everything associated with it have been driven higher by thoughtless legislation.

Surely our servants in Washington are capable of understanding this simple economic equation. But perhaps they are more concerned with increasing control over their constituents than with protecting their interests.

Click Here to Comment


Technorati Tags:
, , ,