Bones: Obama's nightmare

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Obama, Politics, Liberalism, Democrats

Feds next target: News media?

Been wondering which American industry is next to be consumed by our ravenous federal government? You may find the answer in a report released this month suggesting that the news media can only survive if it is a public media.

This suggestion is contained in a paper titled “New Public Media: A Plan for Action,” in which the authors say: “Take a close look at the American journalism landscape in 2010, and the scene is grim. Ad revenue is down; job cuts are up; and new business models have yet to prove sustainable. In recent decades, media consolidation, poor business decisions and the drive for ever higher profit margins have pushed many traditional news outlets to the brink — even before the recession and the collapse of traditional advertising. Today, we have a news industry in steep decline, with no sign of a long-term recovery.”

The authors don’t want the federal government to own the media, but they want substantial involvement by the feds, which ultimately means a high degree of control. “The idea of combining media, public policy and local entrepreneurship to support a robust marketplace” isn’t a new one, they tell us. “Since the nation’s founding, government policy has played a central role in protecting free speech and ensuring a robust and free press. In the 18th and 19th centuries, postal subsidies dramatically reduced the cost of sending newspapers and were essential to the effective dissemination of news and information. ‘Common carrier’ rules dating back close to a century helped to build a robust and universal communications infrastructure. In 1967, the Public Broadcasting Act led to the founding of NPR, PBS and other alternatives to commercial media fare. Each policy change was the result of advances in technology and the need to protect the public interest.”

See how it works? First, the government took certain steps that helped newspapers and later helped broadcasting. But then it formed public broadcasting networks, and now there’s the suggestion it take control of the news media by making it a public entity. As with health care, ultimately the government seeks total control. The same sort of incremental encroachment has substantially taken control of the nation’s public schools.

The authors are correct that journalism is experiencing change, but change does not translate to collapse. This is not journalism’s first such crisis; it is the third one since the printing press shoved the town crier into the unemployment line. In the 1930s newspapers were challenged by the advent of network radio news. And in the 50s both newspapers and radio were challenged by network television news, and that change is still evolving. What journalism also faces today is yet another new element, the Internet. Technology has again produced change; but change is nothing new for the news media, and it isn’t fatal, so we don’t need the government to rush in to save the day.

The authors’ concept fits comfortably into the philosophy espoused by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.” And if there isn’t a convenient crisis afoot, make one up. Hence the title of the report’s opening section: “Crisis and Opportunity.”

This paper was produced by Free Press, a left-wing organization reportedly close to the Obama administration describing itself as “a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working to reform the media.” Free Press is listed first among coalition partners of StopBigMedia.com, a major initiative of which is Net Neutrality, a movement to impose a Fairness Doctrine (read “government control”) on the Internet. Other left-wing partners include: Service Employees International Union (SEIU); AFL-CIO, Department for Professional Employees; Rainbow/PUSH Coalition; National Organization for Women; Feminist Majority; Common Cause; Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting; ACLU of Iowa; Coalition Against Hate Media; and Coalition for the Peoples' Agenda.

Free Press wants to create the idea that private media has failed, and use it as an excuse for the government to “save” yet another industry for the good of all mankind. However, lower revenues and job cuts are normal business problems, sometimes as a result of bad business decisions, sometimes as a result of economic recession. If we can keep the predatory, gluttonous feds at bay long enough, private sector media will adapt to changing circumstances, as it has done throughout history, and strong companies will emerge, survive and thrive.

One wonders if liberals believe there is any element of our lives that would not be better under government control. But imagine what a nightmare it will be if things devolve to the point where government chooses who can report news in a newspaper, or on radio, television, or the Internet.

Defeating this power grab depends upon the free flow of reliable information, which is a significant challenge, given the degree to which the mainstream media has abandoned its duty to produce balanced and accurate reporting to keep the citizenry well informed.

Barack Obama believes there is too much information available to people and that they can’t tell the good from the bad. That’s insulting. The answer is more information, not less, and less information is what we’ll have with government management of the news.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Government, Politics, Freedom of the Press, Liberalism

The Gulf accident doesn’t justify reducing domestic oil production

Last month’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion sent oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, creating a crisis for coastal states and Mexico. In its aftermath there is a lot of finger-pointing and blame-fixing, but exactly what happened and who bears responsibility has yet to be precisely determined.

The incident has been a boon for opponents of fossil fuels in general, and of oil in particular. One enemy of domestic oil is Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), who used the opportunity to call for a total ban on offshore drilling. Appearing on the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC she said, "We see now just how dangerous this can be in the Gulf of Mexico and how important it is to protect the pristine shorelines of Washington, California and Oregon. These are vital economies and we don't need to keep drilling for oil."

Protecting the nation’s pristine beaches and vital economies is certainly important, but Ms. Cantwell is perhaps too eager to stop offshore drilling. This is the first bad oil accident in 30 years, a result of the industry developing generally safe and reliable equipment and techniques. Furthermore, we don’t yet know the extent of the damage, or just how seriously the oil will affect wildlife and shorelines.

Casting some needed light on the nature of oil spills, Merv Fingas, of McGill University and Environment Canada, wrote a piece published on the Minerals Management Service Web site, explaining that a lot of the spilled oil isn’t going to be a problem. “Evaporation is the most important change that most oil spills undergo. In a few days, light crudes can evaporate as much as 75 percent of the starting oil mass and medium crudes up to 40 percent.”Some of the rest of the oil is absorbed by seabed sediment and never reaches the surface or shorelines.

Sen. Cantwell said that “the United States has only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, and so the notion that we are going to affect gasoline prices, or [become] a world oil supplier; we are not,” and so “it’s time to start migrating off of oil and on to other sources of energy,” she said.

However, two percent of the world supply is a good bit of oil, approximately 21 billion barrels. The American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Energy Tomorrow blog says, “The government estimates our federal lands hold enough oil to power more than 65 million cars for the next six decades,” and went on to say that today's technologies can locate previously unknown deposits of oil. For example, the Gulf of Mexico initially was believed to contain 9 billion barrels of oil, but new estimates predict 45 billion barrels, an increase of 500 percent. There’s more U.S. oil around than she thinks.

This crisis has provided the enemies of oil the opportunity to throw gasoline on the fire to try to shut down domestic oil production. But now is not the time to abandon domestic oil or cease increasing the production of domestic oil to reduce our dependency on foreign suppliers. As appealing as the idea of renewable energy replacing fossil fuels may be to some, the fact is that solar and wind, so-called “green” technologies, are incapable of filling the gap because they are insufficiently developed; and, the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. Even if these technologies were able to pick up the slack left by stopping the use of fossil fuels, electricity from these technologies is far more expensive than electricity from coal, oil and natural gas.

In the wake of the Gulf catastrophe, a congressional proposal would raise the liability limit on producers from $75 million to $10 billion, and Energy Tomorrow says that "could threaten the viability of deepwater operations, significantly reduce U. S. domestic oil production, and harm U.S. energy security." API believes a $10 billion-per-well insurance policy would drive small and mid-size offshore operators out of the market, and even if such humongous policies were available, their cost could potentially increase oil production costs by 25 percent.

This is just what the enemies of domestic oil production want, of course. If we can't drill for oil because of a slight chance of disasters like Deepwater Horizon, and if regulations produce high production costs that drive small producers out of business and raise the cost of electricity, gasoline and heating oil, then the only alternative will be new green energy technologies, which will have to be shoved down our throats like health care reform was.

"Now we have a very visual, damaging situation and we now know that the risk is far greater than anybody ever realized,” Sen. Cantwell proclaimed. “But I know that this [crisis] is going to be something that is going to be helpful to my colleagues ..."

Critics of oil just have to face the fact that is isn’t possible to abandon fossil fuels anytime soon, or even make a significant reduction in their use, so we had best move to develop our own resources and wean ourselves off foreign oil, and at the same time work to make oil drilling safer without imposing crippling, cost-raising regulations.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Energy, Politics, Environment, Economy

America has become “the land of the freaks and the home of the braindead”

Stupid is as stupid does, an old saying goes, and evidence is rampant these days that America is getting “progressively” dumber by the day.

Herewith a partial list of idiocy on parade:

U.S. Army Major Dr. Nidal Hassan, after showing signs of radical Islamism that the Army ignored, walked into a building occupied by a large number of his fellow soldiers, shouted Allahu Akbar (God is great), and proceeded to shoot 12 people dead. Why was this scum in the Army to begin with? Stupid.

The panty bomber tried and failed to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day, and was promptly given approximately the same treatment as a shoplifter. The seven-page indictment detailing charges against him contained no specific mention of terrorism in it. Stupid.

The jackass who left an SUV with explosives inside it in Times Square in New York City is a naturalized U.S. citizen who recently spent five months in Pakistan, and somehow managed to hop a plane for Dubai following his inept bombing attempt, despite being on the federal "no-fly" list. Stupid.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg immediately commented that the Times Square terrorist attempt was likely “homegrown” and then speculated it could have been perpetrated by “somebody with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something.” Someone tries to blow up Times Square, and the mayor of New York wants to blame it on an American citizen upset over the health care bill. Stooooopid.

Attorney General Eric Holder refused to acknowledge that radical Islam is responsible for the latest spate of terrorist attacks in testimony before Congress. “I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion …,” said Mr. Holder, and then did the mambo, the cha-cha, and the waltz to avoid using the term “radical Islam” in connection with terrorist activities of radical Islamists. Stupid.

The left, including most of the major media, demean the normal Americans who have been driven by the actions of their arrogant and elitist leaders to public protests in tea party gatherings across the nation. Stupid.

The United States government refuses to secure its borders, exposing its citizens to illegal aliens some of whom live off taxpayers, others of whom wreak havoc and violence on citizens. Stupid.

The administration of Live Oak High School in California allowed Hispanic students to celebrate Cinco de Mayo, a Mexican observance, but sent five students home whose clothing displayed the American flag. Stupid.

People from south of the border come to America – and many of them sneak in – because they think our country is better than theirs, then publicly demonstrate that they value the country they left more than they value America. Stooooopid. Message to immigrants: This is America. You came here of your own accord. No one forced you to come. If you don’t like the way things are done here, go back where you came from.

Almost before the door closed behind him after being sworn in as president, Barack Obama ordered the closing of the Guantanamo prison within a year. Stupid.

Against the wishes and the better judgment of a decided majority of Americans, President Obama and Congressional Democrats jammed through a controversial and catastrophically flawed health care reform bill that will raise costs and taxes on virtually every American. Stupid.

Mr. Obama decides to quit calling terrorism what it is and instead substitutes dopey euphemisms, such as renaming the war on terrorism “overseas contingency operations,” and calling terrorist attacks “man-caused disasters.” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano commented that “we want to move away from the politics of fear (read ‘reality’).” Really stupid.

Instead of continuing to fight terrorism and its supporters head on, Mr. Obama prefers to play kissy-face with Islamist lunatics who cloak their lunacy in a perverted religion. Stupid.

The nation entered the most severe economic crisis in nearly 100 years in 2008, and the current administration and Congress continue to spend money we don’t have and fail to enact policies that will hasten a recovery. Stupid.

There you have it, a brief list of some really stupid behavior that America is now awash in.

The Supreme Court has issued binding edicts in 5-4 votes that Americans would never approve at the ballot box in a million years.

"As Americans and as a nation, we will not be terrorized. We will not cower in fear. We will not be intimidated," President Obama said. Really? Well if so, Mr. President, you had better wise up and act like terrorism is real and undo this goofy policies you have put in place that fosters terrorist activities.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Liberalism, Politics, War on Terror, Democrats

Liberal politics putting nation at risk of depression

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported last Friday that nonfarm payroll employment rose by 290,000 in April, a piece of good news on the job front. Gains occurred in manufacturing, professional and business services, health care, and leisure and hospitality, as did federal government employment, reflecting the hiring of temporary workers for Census 2010.

The rest of the story, as Paul Harvey used to say, is far less rosy, as the unemployment rate rose from 9.7 percent, where it had been for the first 3 months of this year, to 9.9 percent.

How can the nation increase jobs and increase unemployment at the same time, you ask? The number of people looking for a job increased, as new workers entered the job market, and 195,000 of those who had dropped out because they couldn’t find a job have begun looking for work again.

The unemployment rate is not the only negative news on the jobs front. The federal government, the largest employer in the United States, now employs more than 2,700,000, which is about 2.0 percent of the nation's work force and the federal workforce is expanding significantly under the Obama administration. Add state and local government workers into the mix, and approximately 17 percent of the 132,121,000 employed persons in the United States as of June 2009, or 22.6 million people, work for one level of government or another, according to the BLS.

Federal employees make an average annual salary exceeding $79,197 and the average total annual federal workers compensation in 2008, including pay plus benefits, was $119,982 compared to just $59,909 for the private sector, according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Continued high unemployment, the growth in public sector jobs, the high level of union membership among public sector workers, the dangerously high budget deficits and national debt are ominous signs for the United States.

The Beatles’ John Lennon, who was regarded as somewhat of a guru, said many years ago that “America is Rome,” meaning that the United States was following the same sort of self-destructive path as the Roman Empire had centuries before. He was wrong: America was not and is not Rome; America is Greece.

While the ancient Greeks made marvelous contributions to culture, literature, philosophy and science, and gave us democratic government, the modern Greeks provide an unsatisfactory economic model.

Greece has spent itself into a crisis of immense proportions, with some observers predicting a depression not unlike the Great Depression of the 30s. The Greek government has subsidized everything from health care to vacations to pensions, and has a public sector comprising 20 percent of all workers, the vast majority of whom hold constitutionally protected jobs from which they cannot be fired. Some workers can retire with pensions at 45 years of age. Furthermore, tax evasion is rampant, depriving the government of needed revenue.

The Greek economy is tanking, and some observers believe Greece’s collapse signals the end of European-style socialist economies in general, with Portugal and Spain following not far behind Greece.

Athens rang up an outrageous and unsustainable debt, and the bill has come due. The government can’t pay it, so it has adopted an austerity program that includes cuts in government spending, reductions in the size of the public sector, decreases in tax evasion, reforms to the health care and pension systems, and improvements in competitiveness through reforms to the labor and product markets.

None of this sits well with the citizenry. When you have come to depend on the government to support you, as the Greeks have, and then it no longer can, that creates a crisis and the Greek people are in revolt. Violence has broken out across the country, resulting in deaths and anarchy.

Some economic data for Greece (estimated figures):
• In 2009 Greece collected $108.7 billion, but spent $145.2 billion
• Its public debt was 113.4 percent of GDP, up from 97.4 percent of GDP in 2008
• It has an unemployment rate of 9.0 percent
• 20 percent of Greek workers are employed by government

We don’t want to become Greece, but we’re on the same path. Consider:
• Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2010 are $2.381 trillion, an estimated decrease of 11percent from 2009. The President's budget for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion.
• The U.S. public debt is 94.27 percent of GDP
• Unemployment rose in April to 9.9 percent
• 17 percent of American workers are employed by government

Our tax receipts are dropping, we have spent more than we have collected, we owe nearly as much as we produce in a year, one-in-ten of us is unemployed, and nearly one-in-five of us is paid by taxes collected from the other four.

We have not taken the right steps to speed the economic recovery, but have made the same mistakes that were made in the 1930s, when money circulated more slowly and banks lent only a little of the money available. Anti-business rhetoric and anti-business policies emanated from Washington, creating a lack of confidence.

Unless a good dose of common sense overcomes Washington, we are likely to replay the 1930s and follow Greece into a depression.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Culture, Politics, Economics, Liberalism

Arizona forced to act by the federal government’s willful negligence

"Southern Arizona is a war zone controlled by outside criminal forces," said Patrick Bray of the Arizona Cattlemen's Association, and ranchers say the problem has been festering for years. They have been warning of the rising level of drug-cartel-related violence that has already claimed the lives of 10,000 people in Mexico since late 2006, and could further spill into the U.S. That assertion is supported by the murder of 58 year-old Robert Krentz on his Arizona ranch in March, and a deputy sheriff who was shot by a group of suspected illegal alien drug runners just recently.

Arizona is a main corridor for human and drug smuggling, and Phoenix now ranks second in the world in kidnappings for ransom, reporting 366 abductions in 2008, mostly tied to Mexican human smugglers and narcotics gangs.

In case you didn’t grasp that, here it is again: Phoenix – an American city – ranked second in the world for kidnappings for ransom by Mexicans two years ago. Folks, that is plainly not acceptable.

Arizonans are rightly concerned for their own safety and that of their families, friends and neighbors. They are justified in being angry at the gross negligence of the federal government on the border issue, and are so desperate for a solution to this intolerable situation that they took matters into their own hands and passed a law that enables state, county and municipal law enforcement officers to do what the feds refuse to do: check the status of people who as a result of lawful contact may be suspected of being illegally in the U.S. (and Arizona).

This measure has the support of fully 70 percent of Arizonans, including 51 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of independents and 80 percent of Republicans.

Incredibly, this necessary action has prompted a variety of hysterical responses from enablers of illegal aliens. Take the Ms. Foundation for Women, for example. The subject line of an email message screeched, “Arizona Governor Signs Racist, Anti-Immigrant Legislation,” and then goes on to say, “Last Friday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the horrific anti-immigrant bill SB 1070 into law, explicitly condoning racial profiling and the criminalization of undocumented immigrants. We're appalled.” What is appalling, ladies, is your factual inaccuracies.

Granted, being murdered or kidnapped isn’t nearly as serious as the possibility someone may have to produce a Green Card or other proof they are here legally when being questioned by police about a crime, but it ought to rate some concern among fellow Americans.

But no: A ridiculously large number of people are more concerned about the possible inconvenience to Hispanic-looking people than they are about actual violence against the citizens of Arizona. There are an estimated 460,000 illegal aliens in Arizona – one of every 15 residents – and some of them are most likely guilty of more than just being an illegal alien, like kidnapping or murder or drug trafficking. The wild-eyed and inaccurate statement by the Ms. Foundation for Women and the misinformed and emotional reaction to the new law by others who prefer protecting illegal aliens to protecting fellow Americans do nothing to improve the situation for Arizona’s residents, and that should be the primary concern for every American.

Those who have the word “racism” on the tip of their tongue ready to spit it out at every opportunity charge the law is deficient in three areas:

• It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them
• "Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct
• The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling

This view has broad support among the enablers of illegal aliens, however, the Center for Policy Analysis has compared the federal statute and the Arizona law and demonstrated that there is no material difference in the two, revealing those criticisms to be gross (and perhaps deliberate) distortions.

Some legal authorities say the law is unconstitutional because immigration, including illegal aliens, is a federal matter, and that means Arizona’s situation may prompt a federalism showdown. Karl Manheim of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles comments: “States have no power to pass immigration laws because it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can’t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws either.”

However, if someone in Arizona is illegally in the United States he or she is de facto illegally in Arizona. Since the federal government is willfully negligent in securing the borders, it is sheer idiocy that a state could be prohibited from protecting its citizens from the criminal acts of illegal aliens, and particularly so if it deals with illegal aliens in the same manner as the federal government would were it doing its job. The Framers of our Constitution never intended that the states should be so restrained.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano argues that the borders are more secure now than ever. That’s irrelevant, Madam Secretary. They aren’t secure enough, and you are partly responsible for securing them.

Meanwhile, opponents of Arizona’s efforts to protect its citizens urge people to boycott the state. Let’s hope that only illegal aliens follow that request.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Illegal Immigration, Politics, National Security, Liberalism

Economic confusion, nonsense, obfuscation, distortions and falsehoods

Recently at a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee in Miami President Barack Obama said he was “amused” by the Tea Party tax day protests going on around the country highlighted by criticisms of his policies. “You would think they would be saying ‘thank you.’ That’s what you’d think,” he said.

Those petulant and non-presidential remarks were based upon his expectation that Americans would drop to their knees before him in grateful appreciation because of his pledge not to raise taxes for most people. “I can make a firm pledge,” Mr. Obama declared on the campaign trail. “Under my plan no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase; not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes; not any of your taxes.” Rather than raise taxes on middle and low income earners, he said he’ll raise taxes on the “rich.”

The nation’s tax system is so badly skewed that approximately 47 percent of U.S. citizens paid no federal income taxes last year, up 17 percent from 2004. An analysis by Deloitte Tax found that "a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009." At this rate, by 2012 the majority of voters will pay no federal taxes, will contribute nothing to the operation of their federal government, and currently between 40 million and 50 million people are getting some form of support from the government – about one in six people, including children.

Those making less than $32,879 a year – the 108 million in the bottom 50 percent of earners – paid less than three percent of federal income taxes, while the nearly 11 million comprising the top five percent, making $160,000 and up, paid more than 60 percent of federal income taxes.

So, a relative few pay most of the cost of government and nearly half of us pay nothing, about which a few questions arise. Is this really fair? Is it healthy? As a matter of good citizenship and personal responsibility, shouldn’t nearly everyone pay something? If you pay nothing to support your government, do you really care what it does? And, how much say-so should you have about what it does?

Despite President Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on most Americans, since taking office 15 months ago, he and Congressional Democrats have pushed through measures that include tax increases totaling more than $670 billion, which is more than $2,100 for every man, woman and child in the United States. And there are at least 14 new taxes that violate his “no tax increases” vow.

The health care reform bill, of which the Democrats are so proud, creates 20 new taxes, including the following:

~ A new tax on individuals who do not purchase government‐approved health insurance
~ A new tax on employers who fail to fully comply with government health insurance mandates
~ A new 40 percent excise tax on certain high‐cost health plans
~ An increase in the Medicare tax on wages and self‐employment income by 0.9 percent
~ A new ban on the purchase of over‐the‐counter drugs using funds from FSAs, HSAs and HRAs
~ An increase, from 7.5 percent to 10 percent of income, in the threshold after which individuals can deduct out-of-pocket medical expenses
~ A new annual tax on health insurance and a new annual tax on brand name pharmaceuticals
~ A new 2.3 percent excise tax on certain medical devices, and a new tax on insured and self‐insured health plans

Most of these will affect people well below the president’s $250,000 threshold, which reminds us that there are people who will do and say anything to win elections or push their hidden agendas through. It’s all a big game to them, and it’s a game the people invariably lose.

Mr. Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Following that advice, the Congress and the administration sold the idea that the economic crisis could only be cured by massive spending, and in passing the so-called stimulus bill Congress doubled the deficit George Bush left behind. The plan failed to stimulate much of anything, because it was primarily an excuse to hand out money to favored special interests.

In the confusion surrounding the economic crisis, and in opposition to the will of a majority of Americans, Congress passed the radical health care reform bill in one of the ugliest episodes in the history of the House of Representatives. That bill created a new entitlement of approximately $2 trillion, and imposed taxes on middle and low income earners. And, the enormous Obama deficit increased the national debt to $8.2 trillion, which will grow to $20.3 trillion by 2020, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Since Democrats hate spending cuts, we’ll be told that only new taxes and higher rates can solve the deficit/debt problem, so get ready. A lot of “not rich” Americans are going to feel the pain of the president’s broken promises.

Click Here to Comment
Technorati Tags: Economics, Politics, Government, Liberalism

Obama to cut $100 million in spending

Here's a video that puts President Obama's promise to cut $100 million of government spending in sharp perspective.

Budgetary reality

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Obama, Politics, Economics, Democrats

The Latest from Bones

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Culture, Politics, Immigration, Liberalism

Science under the microscope: Unprofessional behavior raises questions

Most people do not recognize the name Peter Duesberg. They don't know that he is a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, or that he was the first scientist to isolate the human cancer gene in 1970 through his work on retroviruses, and that he mapped the genetic structure of those viruses, resulting in his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. Dr. Duesberg is also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Yet, despite these impressive accomplishments and sterling credentials he is looked down upon by some of his peers because, as it turns out, the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) — known as the “AIDS virus” — is a retrovirus, a subject about which Prof. Duesberg is an authority, and based upon his knowledge of retroviruses Prof. Duesberg concluded that HIV, does not cause AIDS.

Despite his background and accomplishments, his research and scientific opinion on HIV are given no credibility among the HIV = AIDS faction of scientists, and instead he is vilified and punished.

The purpose here is not to defend Prof. Duesberg's theory about HIV/AIDS — readers can investigate that on their own and draw their own conclusions, or not, as they choose. The purpose is to call attention to the decidedly unscientific behavior on the part of those scientists who believe the AIDS orthodoxy, and who demean and vilify a highly qualified peer who disagrees with a popular theory.

Science is supposed to be a logical, methodical search for truth; it involves advancing hypotheses and testing and retesting them, disproving those that can be disproved, and allowing those that can't be disproved to stand until a better hypothesis comes along. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved, and there is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

The noted chemist and winner of multiple Nobel Prizes, Linus Pauling, said that “science is the search for truth — it is not a game in which one tries to beat his opponent, to do harm to others.”

Yet, instead of engaging in scientific debate with Prof. Duesberg and disproving his hypothesis in a scientific fashion, the HIV = AIDS establishment responded by cutting off his research funding and making him a villain. Why?

Well, there is a lot of money in AIDS research and treatment. Since the mid-1980s the federal government has spent more than $20 billion in the U.S. for those purposes. If Peter Duesberg's theory is valid or cannot be disproved, it could upset the apple cart for a lot of people who have gotten comfortable in their lucrative work, so comfortable that perhaps they no longer care about objective truth.

If this situation sounds familiar it is because it is very similar to what happens to scientists with the temerity to challenge the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, more recently referred to merely as “climate change,” now enjoying wide acceptance, but which also has been exposed as involving much less than honorable, objective science.

The Wall Street Journal noted back in 2006 that “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled … Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”

Those who do not toe the alarmist line are not only punished, marginalized, and ridiculed; they are even threatened with jail in some cases. Jail? Really? As Sarah Palin would say: “you betcha.”

In 2007 the following headline appeared in Agence France Press “Failure to tackle climate peril 'criminally irresponsible,' IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) told,” a sentiment attributed to Yvo de Boer, UN Environmental Programme head.

Like AIDS research and treatment, AGW attracts an enormous bundle of research and subsidy funding.

In 2007 $50 billion of taxpayer money went to global warming advocates, while just $19 million went to skeptics — a more than 2,500-to-1 funding imbalance in favor of the AGW advocates — according to information provided on the Senate Environment and Public Works Web page. Did the appeal of filthy lucre spawn the fraud, deceit, and error-ridden research that alarmists used to build support for dangerous, expensive and unnecessary changes to our way of life?

We have come to expect this sort of dishonesty and tawdry behavior from politicians. But science is supposed be above such desperate and corrupt conduct. Like journalism — another profession we depend on for honesty and truth that has lost credibility in recent years — science is fast becoming an area where theories will be taken with the same grain of salt as a Barack Obama campaign promise.

The ethical collapse of important professions like journalism, climate science and medical research parallels the collapse of our once-resilient society, one that developed through, independence, individualism and personal integrity. As our society sheds its standards, gives up individualism for dependence, and devolves into socialism, our once-ethical professions get taken down with it.

Click Here to Comment
Technorati Tags: Science, Politics, Environment, Medicine

Potential new tax threatens to keep the U.S. economy in a crisis

On April 8, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) chief Douglas Elmendorf said this about the enormous Obama budget deficit: “U.S. fiscal policy is unsustainable, and unsustainable to an extent that it can't be solved through minor changes. It's a matter of arithmetic.” What does that mean?

It means that government spending is so far ahead of its revenue collection that some major change has to occur. In such situations there are three choices: reduce spending; increase taxation; or some combination of the two.

All those who think the administration and the current Congress will reduce spending, please stand up. Those still sitting are correct: there won’t be spending cuts, and everyone – everyone – is going to pay more taxes, despite Barack Obama’s promises to the contrary during the presidential campaign.

Mr. Elmendorf suggested that the CBO has begun to study the impact of adding an entirely new kind of tax to the extensive list of existing federal taxes: the value added tax (VAT). Observers suspect that President Obama’s deficit reduction commission will recommend the VAT to counter the administration’s spending addiction; the only tool many economists believe is capable of raising enough money to make a dent in the gargantuan Obama deficit.

A value added tax is similar to a national retail sales tax but imposes a tax at every stage of business production, and its cumulative effects are paid by the consumer. Unlike earnings-based taxes like the income tax, people are taxed on what they spend: spend a lot, pay a lot of VAT taxes; spend little, pay little VAT taxes.

Value added tax systems are popular in the social democracies of Europe and other nations around the world, and standard rates range from five percent (Japan) to 25 percent (Sweden and Denmark). Most countries with a VAT have lower rates for some items, and no tax at all on a few.

On inexpensive items you won’t really notice a five percent VAT very much. An item that costs $20 will have an additional dollar of VAT added to it. If the VAT rate is 25 percent, however, you’ll pay a $5.00 VAT. That might be enough to get your attention.

On more expensive items, like something that costs $1,000, the five percent VAT will add $50 to the cost, and the 25 percent VAT will add $250. Both of those should get your attention.

The problem the VAT poses for Americans is that where it might be a suitable replacement for income taxes as a means to raise government revenue, the VAT will not replace the income tax or the myriad of federal taxes we pay, it will be added to them, since the only way to counter the Obama spending addiction is to provide additional revenue to the federal government over and above what it is already collecting.

But adding the VAT to existing taxes will have significant negative effects. Since it is based on spending, the more you make, the more you can spend. However, everyone will likely buy less because the price of nearly everything will go up, while salaries and wages will not. Imagine having to pay from five to twenty-five percent more for most things you purchase. And everyone will be affected by the VAT, not just the middle-class Americans Mr. Obama has labeled “rich.”

Since rising prices lead to lower purchasing, demand for products will drop and production levels will decline commensurately, and that will put additional pressure on employers to lay off workers. The only question is how substantial a drain on the economy the VAT will produce?

EconomyWatch notes that a concern in “introducing value-added tax is that the introduction of the tax would set in motion a spiral in which prices and wages would feed on each other – that is, VAT would be inflationary.”

That Black Hole of Economics, otherwise known as the White House, makes one blunder after another. The most serious problem facing the country when Barack Obama took office was unemployment. The most serious problem 15 months later is unemployment followed closely by the deficit.

Instead of taking action to foster job creation, like reducing taxes on business and individuals, Mr. Obama wasted more than a year focusing on a problem a minority of Americans thought was important – health care reform – and paid lip service to unemployment, the issue Americans thought was most important. He helped push through a $787 billion stimulus bill that hasn’t worked, but has doubled the budget deficit to a scary level.

When he took office, Mr. Obama inherited a deficit of about $800 billion: the original $485 billion Bush deficit, plus $100 billion in increased recession-related spending and lost revenues, plus $200 billion in unpaid Troubled Asset Relief Program loans ($500 billion has been repaid). The Obama deficit is more than $1.5 trillion today, double what he inherited, and 10 percent of GDP.

And now he may be considering imposing a new tax on the country that will increase everyone’s taxes and put additional pressure on jobs, when what is clearly needed is cuts in spending and taxes.


Technorati Tags: Liberalism, Economists, Government, Democrats

Congress shows why the Founders’ original intent must be observed

Many Americans are outraged at the component in the House Health Care bill that requires people to buy health insurance they don’t want and don’t need. The authors of this legislation felt this mandate necessary to put enough young and healthy people’s money into the system to keep it from sinking faster than the Titanic, which, come to think of it, is a pretty good analogy for the chaos surrounding health care reform. What does it say about this ghastly plan that Americans have to be forced to participate in it for it to succeed?

Congress justifies this outrage with the “Commerce Clause” of the United States Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 says: “(The Congress shall have power) [t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; …”

Through liberal interpretation of the words “to regulate commerce … among the several states,” Congress has justified things that the nation’s Founders never intended, and in fact things just like the government oppression that the colonists revolted against only several years earlier.

Given that the colonists had endured circumstances bad enough that they took up arms against King George, how can anyone seriously believe that the Founders ever intended for those few words to be used for the government to gain so much control?

Looking back into history, George Mason University professor Walter Williams wrote that a “key failing of the Articles of Confederation [the first governing document of the United States of America] was the propensity of states to erect protectionist trade barriers. When the Framers met in Philadelphia in 1787 and wrote the constitution that governs us today, they addressed that failure through the commerce clause and the privileges and immunities clause that created a national free-trade zone. Thus, the original purpose of the Commerce Clause was primarily a means to eliminate trade barriers among the states. They didn't intend for the Commerce Clause to govern so much of our lives.”

Our elected public servants, however, go merrily on ignoring the protections the Constitution provides you and me against them.

Using the Commerce Clause as the basis, in 1990 Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act. How so? Because, legislators said, possessing a firearm in a local school zone substantially affected interstate commerce. Huh? Well, you see, because violent crime raises insurance costs, and those costs are spread throughout the population, and across state lines, voila: interstate commerce. And if that explanation isn’t satisfying, Congress also determined that crime threatens the learning environment, thereby reducing national productivity, affecting interstate commerce. These interpretations stretch plausibility to the breaking point.

Fortunately for the country, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Congress didn't have constitutional authority to pass that act, because, "If we were to accept the government's arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate."

Indeed, if we accept the thin premise that crime affects the learning environment, thereby creating a negative effect on interstate commerce, then what children eat, how much sleep they get, and even what they do when not in school are also factors requiring government control.

The American people have allowed this twisting of the Founders’ intentions for a variety of reasons, including ignorance, disinterest, and self-interest, the latter when a particular misapplication of the Commerce Clause fits their narrow viewpoint. They might say, “Well, the Commerce Clause really doesn’t have anything to do with outlawing guns near schools, but, hey, we don’t want guns near schools, do we? So let it stand.”

The U.S. Constitution was created not as an instrument of social engineering or of political expedience. It was carefully crafted to achieve a specific purpose: to establish a limited government that would provide a suitable framework for the nation and at the same time provide maximum freedom for American citizens.

But politicians cannot be trusted to omit ideological motivations from the lawmaking process, which is why the judiciary was given the authority to rule on whether laws comport with constitutional mandates. But the judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court, is often as political and ideological as the Congress.

Edwin Meese, Attorney General in the Reagan administration, notes that “Taking the politics out of the judiciary is a key tenet behind the concept of constitutional originalism. That's the idea that judges should issue rulings based on the original understanding of the authors and ratifiers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights – rather than on outcomes that reflect the judges' personal biases or policy preferences.”

Liberalizing the meaning of the Constitution like this means that the federal government can justify anything it wants to do by giving it the magic label "interstate commerce," and the limits on federal power under the 10th Amendment and the Bill of Rights vanish into thin air.

A so-called “living constitution” is an unsuitable basis for government, since its meaning changes to fit contemporary passions. If the Constitution means only what each new generation prefers it to mean, the nation has no anchor, and floats aimlessly in the political wind.

Original intent is the only sensible interpretation of the Constitution.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Freedom, Politics, Government, Liberalism

Obama’s fraudulent drilling policy

During the presidential campaign Barack Obama favored domestic drilling for oil and natural gas, but throughout the first year of his presidency he imposed numerous delays on American energy production. Now, out of the blue, he has announced he will open up portions of the Outer Continental Shelf to offshore drilling.

He portrayed the idea of needing more domestic production as something new, a great revelation that was the product of a year's worth of investigation by his administration; something nobody had thought of until this “aha” moment.

This decision has prompted a variety of responses. Proponents of developing our oil and natural gas resources are guardedly optimistic, while the anti-domestic-energy-production folks on the left are appalled that the president would abandon his more recent “sensible” position against conventional energy sources and his near-manic drive for imposing “green” technologies on the nation.

But those on the right are correct to be skeptical and the left has no reason to worry: Mr. Obama has no intention of making it easier for the country to do what is in its best interest where energy production is concerned.

If he really wants to increase domestic oil and natural gas supplies, why did this proposal not allow drilling in the Pacific Ocean, or in a large portion of the Atlantic Ocean, in some of the most promising areas of the Gulf of Mexico, or in much of Alaska? Why are there no areas for land-based exploration? And why will most new drilling will not occur until after 2012 at the earliest.

This is a head-fake by the president, who wants to force a massive new energy tax on Americans.

The Waxman-Markey energy bill would do serious harm to the economy, killing more than one million jobs per year and raising energy costs, but many in Congress believe that bill is dead. However, a new effort is being developed by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman, and Democrat Senator John Kerry.

This bill is expected to be less offensive to opponents of Waxman-Markey, and given the suspicious timing of the president’s announcement, his newly discovered need for domestic production is just a part of a plot to push through cap and tax in one form or another.

Despite a study by the American Energy Alliance that reports offshore drilling may well create millions of new jobs and would provide billions in new government revenue at the levels, we should expect an array of delays before any actual drilling takes place, such as court challenges and bureaucratic red tape.

Barack Obama continues to govern in opposition to the will of the people he serves, who understand what he does not understand: the way to energy independence is developing domestic supplies of those fuels that we have been using and are prepared to use, and who also recognize that however attractive wind, solar, and other alternative energy sources may be in terms of “cleanliness,” the technology needed for them to be utilized to any significant degree are as yet unavailable.

Technorati Tags: Energy, Politics, Government, Liberalism

The health care reform bill has passed; now we know what’s in it

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said a short while before the House of Representatives voted on the health care reform bill that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” that arrogant statement indicating that there were some surprises tucked neatly away.

During the 14 months the fight over this bill raged, Americans were opposed to most of what they knew about it, every House Republican opposed it, and 34 Democrats voted against it. Clearly, there was more to dislike than to like. Now, the bill has passed and we know what’s in it.

The attacks on the elderly and the seriously troubled Medicare program are truly breathtaking. Medicare now pays providers substantially less than their services cost, and more cuts begin this year.

In 2011: cuts begin for Medicare Advantage; the elderly are no longer allowed to use Health Care Account (FSA, HSA, HRA, Archer MSA) distributions for over‐the-counter medicine; Medicare cuts to home health begin; wealthier seniors begin paying higher Part D premiums (not indexed for inflation in Parts B/D); new Medicare cuts to long‐term care hospitals begin in July; Medicare reimbursement will be cut when seniors use diagnostic imaging like MRIs, CT scans, etc., and cuts begin for ambulance services, ASCs, diagnostic labs, and durable medical equipment.

And, additional Medicare cuts to hospitals and to nursing homes and inpatient
rehab facilities begin after October, along with cuts for dialysis treatment; Medicare will reduce spending by using an HMO‐like coordinated care model; new Medicare cuts to inpatient psych hospitals begin in July; Medicare cuts to hospice begin in fiscal 2013, accompanied by cuts to hospitals that treat low‐income seniors. In 2014 more Medicare cuts to home health begin.

Who said there won’t be rationing? And with even lower reimbursements, more providers likely will decline to treat Medicare patients.

President Obama said he wanted a bill to help people; apparently he wants to help them at the expense of the elderly.

“But those changes only affect old people,” you say? Everyone will be old someday, but at the rate Medicare cuts are being implemented, that program may not exist in 20 years.

Next year your government will impose a new annual tax on brand name pharmaceutical companies. Do you think that might cause drug prices to rise? Well, it will. And Americans must also begin paying premiums for federal long‐term care insurance.

Employers are required to report the value of health benefits on W‐2s starting in 2011, meaning folks will then have to pay income tax on the value of their health benefits.

In 2013: there will be a new tax on all private health insurance policies;, an increased Medicare wage tax of 0.9 percent; a general increase from 7.5 percent to 10 percent in the threshold at which medical expenses, as a percent of income, can be deducted; and your government will impose a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices, all of which will make medical care more expensive, not less expensive.

And then in 2014 individuals without government‐approved coverage are subject to what the government calls a “tax” of the greater of $695 or 2.5 percent of income. This is not a tax, however, it is a fine: How can you be taxed on something you didn’t buy and don’t own?

If you make $30,000 a year and don’t have insurance, you’ll be fined $750. Earn $50,000 and you get a $1,250 fine, just for not following your government’s demand to buy something you don’t want and may not need.

Employers who fail to offer "affordable" coverage (whatever that means) would pay a $3,000 fine for every employee that receives a subsidy through the Health Care Exchange, and employers who do not offer insurance must pay a fine of $2,000 for every fulltime employee.

What do you suppose will happen to small businesses that are marginally profitable, but can’t afford either to buy health insurance for their employees or to pay a $2,000 fine per employee for not doing what they cannot afford to do? How many people will lose their job as a result of this mandate?

Larger companies are not immune from these punishing effects. AT&T, John Deere, and Caterpillar, among others, have said effects of the reform bill will be millions of dollars each, with AT&T’s hit to be $1 billion. These additional costs will have a negative impact on how all businesses operate. Will they create new jobs or lay people off? Will they raise prices on their products?

So, while President Obama, and Congressional Democrats are popping corks on the champagne celebrating a bill that will cost $940 billion over ten years and wreak havoc on the elderly, the rest of us are wondering how we are going to handle the cost increases and health care service restrictions this bill will produce.

Opponents of this approach to health care reform said all along that a lot of improvement could have been achieved by addressing health care problems individually, instead of this massive, costly, and horribly flawed approach.

We should have listened to them.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Government, Politics, Health Care, Democrats

The Government Can!

This is a truly excellent and well done perspective!

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Government, Politics, Liberalism, Democrats

Words of wisdom from a common-sense conservative

Thaddeus McCotter, Representative from Michigan, is a common-sense conservative Republican who doesn't get nearly enough exposure.

Please take a few minutes to watch and listen to this commentary on "Change" and the sad state of affairs we find ourselves in today.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Government, Politics, Liberalism, Democrats

Washington in 2010: Bribery and scheming and corruption, oh my!

Most Americans know who Thomas Jefferson was. He was the principle author of the Declaration of Independence and one of the most influential of the founders of this nation. He was Governor of Virginia, the first Secretary of State of the United States, and the nation’s third president, serving eight years beginning in 1801. As a major figure in the founding of the United States of America he fully understood the reasons the colonies split from Great Britain, and his beliefs were fairly representative of the people of the times who decided the oppressive and tax-crazed British government was destructive of the freedoms the Creator intended for human beings.

Mr. Jefferson had a lot to say about the form of government that best allows people to live in freedom, and one of his most famous quotes is, “That government is best which governs the least ...”

Sometime before he died in 1826 he said, “I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labour of the industrious.” If he believed that statement was true in or before 1826, what do you suppose he would think today?

The federal government has been too big, too expensive and too authoritarian for quite a while – nearly 200 years, according to Mr. Jefferson – but it has become intolerable this year, as so capably illustrated by the health care reform fiasco: Even though most people don’t like the bill, the leaders were determined to pass it with only Democrat support, if enough Democrat arms could be twisted to get the votes required for passage. If not, they would force it through in an underhanded scheme to pass it without actually voting on it. And while all of this was going on, states are passing legislation to prevent the feds from forcing their citizens to participate in the program, an intrusion into states rights, and are threatening to sue the federal government over it. What a circus!

Our gargantuan, wealth-consuming, non-attentive government has a legislature that is isolated from the citizenry it represents. In the early days we had a part-time citizen legislature made up of farmers and merchants, and so forth, who went to the capital for a month or two, did their work, and returned to their normal lives as farmers and merchants, and were in close touch with the people who elected them.

Today’s career politician is as far from being a citizen legislator as the Earth is from the Sun. They aren’t in Washington for 60 or 90 days and then home again; they are there their entire term of office. They have a second residence in or near DC where they live during their tenure, and even if they use the scheduled work sessions at home, going back to their home state or district is more like a vacation or a business trip. Their home is Washington, DC, not the state or district they represent.

We pay them well to be isolated from their constituents. Rank-and-file members of the Congress receive $174,000 per year, Majority and Minority Leaders receive $193,400, and the Speaker of the House receives $223,500, and all get generous retirement and health benefits funded by tax dollars, though most make contributions of their salary and also pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.

If legislators were in office for only a couple of years, being separated from their constituents might not be so much of a problem, but many of them are there for decades. No wonder their priorities get confused and they forget who they work for. Combine this isolation with the pressures of partisan politics, and you have an atmosphere ripe for the sort of malfeasance we see today in the health care reform movement. If nothing else screams at you that we seriously need change in how Washington works, this should do the trick.

Anyone who participated in that disgraceful process should be removed from office, and that would be a good start to restoring honest representative government to the United States. After that, three beneficial changes should be considered:

1. Term limits for Congress. The president can serve only eight years; why should Congress be different? So, Senators get one eight-year term and Representatives get up to two four-year terms, and then home they go to become normal Americans again.

2. Limit Congressional sessions to one three-month session or two two-month sessions. Between sessions members go back to their real job and the pay that goes with it.

3. Members of Congress will be paid a salary that is a bit higher than the U.S. average income, and a housing allowance. Real emergencies may warrant longer sessions, but with reduced pay. Being in the service of your fellow Americans should not be a lucrative venture for public servants.

America’s journey from greatness to mediocrity – once a long, slow decline – has been dramatically sped up by our president and his fellow statists in Congress. Unless something dramatic happens very soon, we will live in the once-great United States.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Government, Politics, Liberalism, Democrats

Some serious questions about the motives of our political leaders

Are the Democrat leaders in Washington out of touch with the mood of the country? Do they have a death wish? Are they insane?

Those are serious questions, prompted by the almost incomprehensible behavior of the country’s three most visible leaders, as well as a fair number of members of Congress and administration officials.

President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seem either unable to understand that Americans are not in favor of their idea of health care reform, or they simply do not care what the people think.

Three nationwide polls reflect the mood of the country quite plainly:

• A CBS News/New York Times Poll conducted Feb. 5-10 asked, "What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" The economy and jobs topped the list at 52 percent, while health care garnered only 13 percent.

• The liberal Web site Daily Kos poll conducted by Research 2000 from March 8-11 asked, "Do you feel the country overall is heading in the right direction or wrong direction?" Thirty-nine percent answered the right direction, but 60 percent said the wrong direction.

• Perhaps the most telling of all is the Gallup Poll from March 4-7, which asked, "In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?" Nearly four to one, Americans are dissatisfied (79 percent to 19 percent).

These polls reflect dissatisfaction with the country’s direction, which includes a dangerously intrusive and unpopular health care reform effort, but the leaders ignore this message, still obsessed with jamming through health care reform. And, not only do Americans not like the reform bills, many senators and representatives don’t like them, either.

The Senate bill needed 60 votes to pass and it took Majority Leader Harry Reid buying votes with sweet deals for a few key members to get 60 votes, and the House bill passed with only two votes more than needed. The Senate bill had no Republican support, and the House version had one Republican vote.

The next step in this compulsive exercise is for the House of Representatives to vote on the Senate bill. But some don’t like public funding of abortions, and thus don’t support the bill, and others don’t support it because it doesn’t have a public option. All in all, there’s enough stuff in the bill, and enough stuff that’s left out of the bill, that the 216 votes needed for passage may not materialize. If it passes and becomes law, the Senate will then vote for a reconciliation bill to the fix problems.

Or not. There is no guarantee that once the House passes the bill and the president signs it that the Senate will do anything, leaving features in that many object to, and leaving out things people want in. Many House members will likely support the bill only because their objections can be dealt with through reconciliation.

Undaunted by the lack of popular and legislative support for the bill, Ms. Pelosi now may resort to a scheme referred to as the “Slaughter Solution,” dreamed up by New York Democrat Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, where the House will simply “deem” the Senate bill passed by the House, which means that the president will be signing a bill into law that the House of Representatives never voted on, an act of desperation that is said to be unprecedented in U.S. history. This is underhanded, unacceptable, and probably illegal.

Here are some more serious questions: Is a bill that has the support of only one party a good piece of legislation? Isn’t good legislation that which has a broad and substantial majority of support? Did we elect these people to enact partisan legislation? And, is that the best way to run the country? The answers to those questions are: No. Yes. No. No.

What a revealing situation: In spite of negative poll numbers, in spite of crumbling support in both houses of Congress, President Obama, Mr. Reid, and Ms. Pelosi charge ahead to force health care reform through, apparently at any cost.

This behavior defies common sense. These three individuals are committed statists, and are determined to increase the size and authority of government, even if they take themselves and their party down in the process.

Their ideology is sharply at odds with America’s founding principles and is contrary to what the American people want from their public servants, but it is controlling so much of what is happening in Washington today. It appears to be more important to these leaders than their political future and the political future of other Democrats, whose re-election they expect those members to sacrifice to satisfy this lust for big government legislation with socialistic overtones that these three believe in so strongly.

Sensible Americans – Democrats, Republicans and independents – will oppose this desperate and tawdry process. They will oppose it despite what they think about the health care reform bills because they believe in the principle of good government, which is sadly missing in Washington, DC, and has reached a new low since the 2008 election.

Click Here to Comment

Technorati Tags: Liberalism, Politics, Health care, Democrats