We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats narrowly won a key test vote Friday on sweeping legislation to combat global warming and usher in a new era of cleaner energy. Republicans said the bill included "the largest tax increase in American history."
It doesn't "include" a tax increase - this entire wacky thing is a household and business energy tax, pure and simple. The lie that anyone other than households and businesses will end up paying it is ridiculous. It simply will be passed through to you in your utility bill. The O did promise during the campaign to make energy far more costly, and this is the beginning.
My own cynical view is that the "greeny" pose is just being used as a mask to suck more money out of the private economy into Washington. This bill does nothing for the environment - and Congress knows it.
I have read estimates that this will cost anywhere from $120-over $2000 per household per year, with plenty of geographical variation. I haven't seen any estimates about what it will cost businesses, but clearly that depends on your businesses' energy usage. If you have 1000 Costco stores to air condition, watch out.
If you wanted to design something to put the brakes on an economic recovery, this would be a fine plan.
Update:The dang thing passed in the House. I never thought it would. Note to self: never underestimate the Dems when they have a chance for a new tax. They are tricking the public: digging deeper into your pocket while making it look like greenie-virtue.
Mr. Pastor, tear down this church. Please. The building sucks and, trust me, God hates it too.
ObamaCare: Not inevitable. But they feel they have to pass something, or they will lose their momentum for their laundry list. Related: Who will run your medical care if the bill passes? (You can be certain it won't be practicing docs - it will be policy wonks and economists - the same geniuses who invented HMOs.) Related:
The primary problem for Democrats is not stakeholders.It’s the general public.They were told “reform” would leave them alone if they liked their coverage — and their premiums would go down too by $2500 per year.But the bills the Democrats in Congress are now writing will increase costs for people with insurance and shift tens of millions of them out of the employer plans they generally like.That’s not the deal they are expecting to be offered, and they aren’t likely to agree to it anytime soon.
Related: If you call everything a crisis, people begin to think the word means "one more issue we ought to think about some time. Viking:
Hysterical hyperbole of the day - Firedoglake: "The gravity of America's health care crisis is the moral equivalent of the 19th Century's bloody conflict over slavery. This is not hyperbole..."
When did the US renounce "Leadership of the Free world"? The Left rarely speaks of freedom, or seems to value freedom, except when it's about abortion "choice." Otherwise, standing up for freedom is evil, un-nuanced cultural imperialism, right?
Self-censorship and the "see no Islam" mindset. Brussels J
Obama is willing to risk some political capital and credibility, but only on domestic pushes for socialism. The world knows he's a single-minded one-trick pony and views anything that occurs outside the headlong drive for socialism as an inconvenient "distraction" that does not need to be solved, but merely bumped off the front page.
The dictators and terrorists know this. Even US allies in socialistic Europe know this. The only people who don't seem to know this are the US media and the American public, which is largely shielded from these realizations by a severe underreportage of such "distractions."
Yes, we like Sanford, but have nothing worthwhile to say about his mess - other than to note what they're saying: "He wasn't hiking the Appalachian Trail. He was humping the Argentinian tail."
A TV LOW POINT: Turned on the TV to see Geraldo interviewing Tommy Mottola about Michael Jackson’s death. In the background, footage of the body being delivered to the coroner’s office by helicopter. Glad to see Fox is keeping us up on what’s really important, the night before a big cap-and-trade vote in Congress, while revolution simmers in Iran, and people are trying to nationalize healthcare.
If passed, it would be the biggest tax in US history. Which is why the Dems are so intent on it. Climate has zip to do with it.
They want your money. They always do. They should have it, because they are so much smarter, wiser, more altruistic, and more deeply caring than I am, clinging here as I do in abject, helpless ignorance to my guns and Bible and my land and my (now paltry) life savings, and trusting in God, my own and my wife's resourcefulness, and trusting in the American spirit instead of in Pelosi, Rangel, Reid, Waxman, Obama, and all of the other buffoons and sleazes in DC.
It must be because I am stupid. Perhaps I am, because when I commented to the supermarket check-out girl yesterday about all of the cold and rain, she authoritatively informed me that it was due to climate change. At first, I thought she was kidding.
"The song's lyrics describe the title establishment as a luxury resort where 'you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.'On the surface, the song tells the tale of a weary traveler who becomes trapped in a nightmarish luxury hotel that at first appeared inviting and tempting."
When I was a boy, the populations of New York and California were about equal.The taxpayer and sane-unfriendly policies of New York led to its decline, as people flocked to the Golden State, California’s population now more than double New York’s.Now, the gold is severely tarnished. The supposedly “something for nothing” policies that pander to the poorer, illegal immigrants, the S.F and L.A. liberal elites, envirocrazies, and unions, all at the expense of taxpayers and business, has led to an exodus of born Americans and industry to other states.Like New York, California is near bankrupt and its dominant power-brokers refuse to wake up.
California voters just roundly rejected the Democrat-Schwarzenegger phony fixes.So, now, as reportedfrom Sacramento, there’s a standoff in which the Democrats continue to peddle phony fixes.Schwarzenegger seems to be refinding some sobriety, but as Sacramento’s top columnist narrates,the gimmicks are a joke.
"And the key thing," Schwarzenegger said, "is now to just really make sure they don't come up with one-time solutions, because even if you go and withhold your taxes, it's a one-time solution. Or if you go and move the date of paying your paychecks from June 30th to July 1st, to kick it over to the next fiscal year, that's a one-time solution. It doesn't help you in the out years."
A smart-aleck journalist – this one, in fact – quickly reminded the governor that his budget also contains "one-time solutions," such as forcing taxpayers to speed up payments to the state.
"Absolutely correct," the governor conceded. "And what we don't want to do is add to those."
"So it's all right if you do it but not all right if they do it?" yours truly persisted.
Democrats rant against California Prop 13, that limits property taxes, and the 2/3rds rule in the legislature, that limits Democrat majorities.San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper editorial board member Chris Reed, sets them straight: California property taxes since 1980have “gone up 84 percent faster than combined inflation and population growth;” without the 2/3rds ruleCalifornia would “see an enormous range of tax hikes -- not budget restraint or cuts -- whenever deficits emerged,” as in New York.The New York Times describes the many instances of unions, aside from using their power over the California and New York legislatures to protect their profligate benefits, using their political power to self-servingly increase the costs of “green” power.
Former NYC Mayor Rudolph Guiliani op-eds in today's New York Times that New York needs a 2/3rds rule, like California’s.
SUPERMAJORITY FOR TAX INCREASES Too often increasing taxes is the first impulse for Albany legislators. Requiring a supermajority for tax increases would provide a powerful check on those who still think we can tax and spend our way out of economic problems. A supermajority would protect already over-burdened citizens and attract businesses, improving our long-term competitiveness.
Hmmm!A 2/3rds rule for Congress, House and Senate, wouldn’t eliminate budget battles but might slow down the fast-Barack haste to tax and spend the rest of America into California and New York’s bankruptcy.
N. Korea threatens to wipe the US off the earth. I wonder whether the O is one of those kind of guys who can be tough on the basketball court (eg basketball, the Brits, the Repubs, etc), but who wimps out with genuine danger.
I guess we need to try being nicer to the North Koreans. Have we tried sending flowers, or inviting them over for hot dogs on the 4th?
Have we tried destroying our economy, or castrating our military? Have we tried bending way over yet?
Semi-related re our hot dog party friends: Iran is erupting. Shucks, let's invite them all over to our house. Maybe if we are nice, they will be nice.
Fielding has issued a challenge to the Obama White House to rebut the data. It will be a novel experience for them, as Fielding is an engineer and has an Australian's disregard for self-important government officials. Here is how The Agedescribed his challenge:
Senator Fielding emailed graphs that claim the globe had not warmed for a decade to Joseph Aldy, US President Barack Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, after a meeting on Thursday…. Senator Fielding said he found that Dr. Aldy and other Obama administration officials were not interested in discussing the legitimacy of climate science.
Telling an Australian you're not interested in the legitimacy of your position is a red rag to a bull. So here is what Fielding concluded:
Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide and author of Heaven and Earth, I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive….
As a federal senator, I would be derelict in my duty to the Australian people if I did not even consider whether or not the scientific assumptions underpinning this debate were in fact correct.
What Fielding's questioning represents is just the tip of the kangaroo's tail. He speaks for a growing number of Australians who will no longer take green propaganda on trust.
Read the whole thing. The magnitude of the hoax is finally coming clear to the general public. It's about time.
The CDS --the "toxic assets" that AIG (most prominently) committed ritual suicide with --was specifically left unregulated by this guy in the yr 2000 financial reforms, when there were a few hundred million in CDS existent. By 2007, that number was sixty trillion. Denninger makes the case that complex structured assets are deceptive by design.
Waxman-Markey would be a very stupid bill even if it were true that 1) the earth is getting warmer, 2) human activity is mostly responsible for climate changes, and 3) a warmer earth would be a bad thing. Given that all three of these premises are false--we cannot, in fact, control the weather--Waxman-Markey is a suicidal monument to human folly.
Oh, it seems easy at first. The press is kind; the Congress is pliant; the country loves you. You’re a breath of fresh air after the previous administration’s excesses. Your first attempts at big-ticket legislation shoulder their way into law. The opposition party looks easily divided, easily co-opted and deeply out of touch.
But eventually the hard part arrives. For Barack Obama, it may have started last week, courtesy of the abacus-wielding wonks at the Congressional Budget Office.
Dick Morris' new book Catastrophe. Yes, he is a Dem.
Where did the US sit in 2007 (the last year of data in Table 1315)? Somewhat less socialist than the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) average, but well into the mix. In 2007, government spending in the US was 37.4% of GDP, or more than Australia, Ireland, Japan, Slovakia, South Korea and Switzerland. The OECD average was 40.4% and the European average was 46.2%.
In 2007, the federal government spent "only" 20% of GDP (the remaining 17.4% of GDP was spent by state and local governments). According to the Congressional Budget Office, President Obama will spend 28.5% of GDP in 2009. If states and localities have remained roughly constant, government spending is now about 46% of GDP, or almost exactly the European average in 2007.
We are as much in the thick of socialism right now as, say, Germany, Greece and the Netherlands.
But the trends in these figures tell an even more interesting story. Table 1315 lists 28 OECD countries. At some point prior to 2007, 16 of those governments were spending over 50% of GDP. The European average peaked in 1993 at 52.2%. But by 2007, only four governments spent over half of GDP: Hungary, Denmark, Sweden and France. The European average fell from 52.2% to 46.2%.
At one point, Sweden was the top socialist in the OECD states, at 70.9% of GDP. But by 2007, France was in the lead, at just 52.4%. Sweden's government had cut its spending by almost 20% of GDP between 1993 and 2007. That is the size of the entire US federal government as a fraction of GDP!
The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll appears more honest in demographics and political leanings of respondents than the one with slanted political-affiliation respondents that the New York Times-CBS tried to slip past us over the weekend.Simply, there’s justified concern over the costs of healthcare but more concern over losing the healthcare we now have or the government dictating it.President Obama remains popular, but his policy is bad medicine.
As this poll sums up:
A majority of Americans see government action as critical to controlling runaway health-care costs, but there is broad public anxiety about the potential impact of reform legislation and conflicting views about the types of fixes being proposed on Capitol Hill… Most respondents are "very concerned" that health-care reform would lead to higher costs, lower quality, fewer choices, a bigger deficit, diminished insurance coverage and more government bureaucracy. About six in 10 are at least somewhat worried about all of these factors, underscoring the challenges for lawmakers as they attempt to restructure the nation's $2.3 trillion health-care system.
Part of the reason so many are nervous about future changes is a fear they may lose what they currently have. More than eight in 10 said they are satisfied with the quality of care they now receive and relatively content with their own current expenses, and worry about future rising costs cuts across party lines and is amplified in the weak economy….
Beyond general backing for governmental action, a few specific provisions under consideration on Capitol Hill receive significant levels of public support, including higher taxes on households with incomes above $250,000, a limit on medical malpractice amounts and, under certain conditions, a law requiring all Americans to carry health insurance. A large majority, 70 percent, opposes a new federal tax on employer-paid health insurance benefits that exceed $17,000 a year.
Majority support for certain new government action, however, does not come with high hopes: Half of all Americans said they think the quality of their health care will stay about the same if the system changes, and 31 percent expect it to deteriorate.
The poll data is available here. Here’s part of the data below:
GOT THOUGHTS ON THE HEALTHCARE PROPOSAL? Call your Senators and Congressperson. (202) 224-3121, or — better — call the local office in your town. Complaining on the Internet isn’t enough . . . .
The main reason Americans spend more on medical care is not about life expectancy - it's about two simple things: quality of life, and the trial lawyers.
(American life expectancy stats are also pulled down by the numbers of premies and babies with terrible abnormalities we attempt to save.)
First, in how many countries can you get a shoulder repair or a new knee or hip in a week? Annual screening colonoscopies and mammographies? Guys with advanced ALS on home ventilators? And how many countries generate the new treatments that the US does? (We do 90% of them. For a recent dramatic example, see this via Insty.) We all wear out and die, but there aren't many countries where my 83 year-old Mom would be playing tennis with her new shoulder, hips and knee, her synthetic mitral heart valve, her pacemaker, her cataract surgeries and her hormone replacement. She calls herself The Bionic Mom. She is willing to die, but while she is alive she wants to live: play tennis, work in her gardens, go to the ballet, sit on her volunteer boards, cook for my Dad, and go to Europe every August. What is that worth in $ terms? Of course they are on Medicare, but they would gladly buy private insurance instead.
Re the trial lawyers, where else in the world do you get a $7000 work-up if you walk into the ER with a migraine headache? Where else in the world do obstetricians pay $350,000/year in malpractice insurance because the law permits suits for bad results, not just practice errors (like amputating the wrong leg)?
If something needs fixing, it's the latter, not the former.
The president characteristically denies that he is doing what he is doing — putting the nation on a path to an outcome he considers desirable — just as he denies any intention of running General Motors. Nevertheless, the unifying constant of his domestic policies — their connecting thread — is that they advance the Democrats’ dependency agenda. The party of government aims to make Americans more equal by making them equally dependent on government for more and more things.
The main question of the day is, can Americans afford NOT to adopt socialized healthcare? Everyone knows that the individual will never take the necessary steps; it is up to the State to do it for us. In a vital decision like this, do we really need to depend on the vote of emotionally underdeveloped conservative segments? Those incapable or unwilling to acknowledge the moral superiority and the ethical progress of the more socially advanced Europeans, do not deserve a right to vote. Voting rights shall be taken away from them, as well as their medicine. One cannot expect a society to prolong the lives of its useless, degraded elements at its own peril.
I need to squeeze in here somewhere the fact that members of Congress and the government would keep their own generous private medical plans, and not be subject to government control.
Because of the deadweight costs of taxation itself, costs that are not included in the propaganda we are increasingly being fed, we might well find that there is in fact, overall, no saving of money.
President George W. Bush concocted the connection between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein to justify the Iraq invasion. Now President Barack Obama is concocting an equally fantastical theory to justify a de facto government takeover of health care.
Ms. Feinberg recalled one 15-year-old boy from Long Island who told her: “Oh, we all hated Holden in my class. We just wanted to tell him, ‘Shut up and take your Prozac.’ ”
"World cooling is here to stay and the new round of climate alarmism just announced by UK Government ministers and the Met Office of more extreme weather and warming in coming decades driven by mankind has no merit and is defied by the facts and front-line science”, said Piers as his forecast from three weeks ahead was confirmed for the formation of the first East Pacific typhoon of the season off Mexico.
What most Americans identify as government "welfare" are payments to single mothers, food stamps and (perhaps) Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor. But that's not the half of it. Since 1960, government has changed radically. Then, 52 percent of federal spending went for defense, 26 percent for "payments for individuals" -- the welfare state. By 2008, 61 percent consisted of "payments for individuals," 21 percent for defense.
Social Security and Medicare -- programs for the elderly -- represented the lion's share: $1 trillion in 2008. Most Americans don't consider these programs "welfare," but they are. Benefits are paid mainly by present taxes; there's little "saving" for future benefits; Congress can alter benefits whenever it wants. If that's not welfare, what would be?
Pressures on private and public welfare won't abate.
This is what Tait Trussell of the Acton Institute wrote in an article just last week:
“[I]n just three years from now, Social Security and Medicare will need one out of ten tax dollars, John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis points out. And just 11 years in the future—by 2020—Uncle Sam will need one out of every four income tax dollars to fund these programs for seniors. If we continue with all other government programs in operation today and raise the taxes to pay for Medicare, plus Medicaid—the health program for low-income folks—the Congressional Budget Office estimates a middle-income family by the middle of this century will have to pay two-thirds of its total income in federal taxes.”
This situation defines the term “unsustainable.” Why is not President Obama proposing a “fix” to avert this approaching catastrophe? Curiously enough, not only he is unconcerned, but he seems to think that the unviable entitlements constitute some sort of achievement. This is what he said about them in Chicago:
Presidents have called for health care reform for nearly a century…But while significant individual reforms have been made – such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program – efforts at comprehensive reform that covers everyone and brings down costs have largely failed.
The president apparently believes that these failing federal programs already represent reform and that all that is needed now is to create something that would quickly become the mother of all entitlements – governmentally guaranteed universal healthcare.
Americans should really worry when their president fails to recognize the real dilemma we face as a nation: Either we reform entitlements or we let them drag us down the dark pit of insolvency.
They've been lying about the number of people without health care. They've been lying about whether the public is satisfied with health care. They've been lying about every aspect of health care.
They unleashed the slip-and-fall lawyers on the medical system, causing untold higher costs for medical practitioners. They've attacked the health care system relentlessly, driving up costs just like they've attacked the energy industry and the automakers.
And even when they have complete monopolistic control of a system, like the educational system in America, they want more control. It's never enough. They want more money, more regulations. More. They need to "invest". They need to raise taxes. They need to repress. They need to compel.
Because the Statist cannot make the imperfect perfect, even though he says he can. The Statist is more imperfect than anyone else.
Related: Labour is like our Dems: their perennial strategy is to make as many as possible dependent on the government. That way, they hope to have jobs and power forever. Via TimesOnline:
Labour lags behind on almost every indicator, save one: it is still regarded as the party more likely to protect public services. An Guardian/ICM poll last week revealed that 48% of voters think Labour will protect services, whereas 46% think the Conservatives will do the same. Labour has a positive score of 1%, ie, more people believe Labour will protect services than harm them. The Tories have a deficit of 3%.
An architect of new Labour whispers in my ear, and Gordon’s, that people do not yet have full confidence in the Tories. The position of Cameron is much better than that of his party; the opposition’s lead is shallow. “If you do not trust them on the public services,” he says, “it’s a reflection of a deeper distrust that they have not really changed.”
I have tried pointing Americans at the British example to show them what an appalling idea it is to have the state directing any industry, let alone medical care. But alas it is very hard to overcome that special kind of insular American optimism that does not think what happens in another advanced first world nation can teach them anything, because in the USA things will be different.
DON SURBER: Don’t Become West Virginia. “If poverty is so good, then why do we have anti-poverty programs? Using her logic, we should have pro-poverty programs.” Well, that’s pretty much what’s going on right now . . . .
We said we would not make fun of Michelle O's garden, but this is ridiculous. Didn't they just plant the seeds a few weeks ago? I want to know what magic fertilizer they use. Potemkin garden? Or is this a loaves and fishes deal?
Superb on-the-ground report in the second half. Read it all. When people bleed for tyranny, we feel ill. When they bleed for freedom, we are inspired - and we hope we could be so bold ourselves.
Continual Iran updates at Gateway, whence the photo. We wish the best for all of the brave and lovely women in Iran's Lipstick Revolution.
Related: Driscoll notes that great powers always have a dog in the fight, because a posture of evenhanded neutrality always has non-neutral effects.
Related: Ace rightly notes that the O's refusal to stand strong with the protesters can damage future relations with Iran. The man is a pussy, a Prom Queen. The only things he gets tough with are Republicans, FOX news, and our international allies and friends like the Brits and Israel.
Obama himself gave us ample warning of his reckless grandiosity during the 2008 campaign. So we can’t say we weren’t warned. The situation has only gotten worse in the months since his inauguration. And there’s 3.5 years to go. Help!
Related: Medical care plan would not apply to Congress! Via Blue Crab:
From what is known about the tippity-top secret bill at this point, it appears that it is bad enough that Congress will not allow it to apply to themselves or the rest of the Federal government.
That should tell you all you need to know about this bill.
I agree that the "war against drugs" failed. It's been going on since Nixon. All it does is raise the cost of drugs and increase the crime. It's past time to re-think it. It's too bad that drug users generally have little interest in getting over it, but that's reality.
What the late lamented Milton Friedman said about medical care costs. He makes a number of excellent points, including that it is employee insurance that drives the prices up. h/t, Mankiw
The looming middle class tax increases. Even some Dems are waking up, like drunks after a bad binge. They have been drinking on our nickel since January.
The New York Times, otherwise known as the Grey Lady, might more appropriately be known as Obama’s Shady Lady.Believe its poll and get a Times Square disease.
Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind [72%] one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
BUT, according to the actual poll data, of the 73% of respondents who said they voted in 2008 only 34% voted for McCain and 66% for Obama.The actual vote was 46% (corrected) McCain.So, 29% of McCain voters ignored by the poll must not be Americans, according to the NYTs methodology, and there are about as much an overpolling of Obama voters. NYT's Shady Lady polling.
If you don't have unlimited funds and if you are not the sort of experienced traveller who likes to do everything yourself, your own way, check out our friends at Club ABC before the summer is over.
As you can imagine, times are tough in the travel biz but that means that there are still ways to go someplace interesting without breaking the bank. The prices are better than they should be.
The folks at ABC have been generous to Ducks Unlimited. Enuf said.
In the wake of trying to squelch three federal Inspector Generals, there’s this story about how those who try to expose Obama, Obama administration, and Obama ally activities are dealt with.
[UPDATE: ACORN tries to hide behind a change in name, and more about it trying to squelch former members. Same smell remains.]
ACORN/ProjectVote has filed a suit against Anita Moncrief, asking damages of well over $5 million.Anita Moncrief is a former employee who has distributed internal emails to exhibit illegal ties between the Obama presidential campaign and ACORN/ProjectVote, and she has testified and written widely about what she knows.ACORN/ProjectVote has received tens of millions of federal funds and is slated to receive many, many more millions.
The 30-page civil action filed by ProjectVote is downloadable here. Legal papers are not my usual Saturday morning reading, but this one caught my eye as an illustration of legal thuggery.
The charges are basically three:
Moncrief misappropriated about $1700 while an employee, of which she’paid back about $500 before Moncrief’s employment was terminated. She helped expose how a former executive stole $1million.In a blogpost by Moncrief last November, she admits her own misuse of funds and takes responsibility, pleading extreme need due to poor health insurance benefit and pay.Yet the suit presents nothing about trying legally to recover the remaining funds from her.The charge appears in order to lay groundwork for reducing Moncrief’s credibility and as reason for her seeking vengeance.
The next charge is that Moncrief misappropriated ProjectVote’s trademark by her use of the email address projectvotenews@mail.org to distribute internal emails exhibiting embarrassing doings to donors.This appears a weak charge as in this grey area of law it does not appear she infringed on the trademark.See, for example, “Fair Use of Trademarks” at the The Publishing Law Center.
The next charge is that Moncrief damaged relationships with donors.No impact on donations is presented.Another weak charge.
The complaint includes, in addition to Moncrief, a “John Doe”, another employee who may have supplied Moncrief with additional internal material.This appears an effort to unearth the remaining whistleblowing mole.
A competent legal team for Moncrief should be able to deal with the charges, and in the process of discovery and media coverage bring further to light ACORN/ProjectVote’s nature.Hopefully, Moncrief will obtain it, or be squelched by her own lack of funds to defend herself and our right to know where and how our tax dollars are used.
Of note, the New York Times shut down its investigation of ACORN/ProjectVote.Newsbusters describes some of the details.
But apparently Moncrief's information was suddenly no good when it might have embarrassed the Obama campaign.
Heidelbaugh testified before a congressional committee in March that the nonprofit group violated a host of tax, campaign finance, and other laws. She said the Obama campaign sent ACORN its "maxed out donor list" and asked two of the avowedly nonpartisan group's employees "to reach out to the maxed out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN."
The 48' Colin Archer above is for sale, but what we really need up here in the Northeast is an Ark. Almost up to 40 days and 40 nights of cold rain. Nobody is boating much yet. I call all crummy weather "climate change" now. Don't you? Aren't we entitled to nice weather? Why doesn't the government do something about it?
JOHN TIERNEY: U.S. Climate Report Assailed: “The new federal report on climate change gets a withering critique from Roger Pielke Jr., who says that it misrepresents his own research and that it wrongly concludes that climate change is already responsible for an increase in damages from natural disasters.”
Does academia believe that they all think alike because they're smarter than me? I do not think that they are. They just chose different careers. Everybody is a careerist, to some extent.
It is a foregone conclusion that the bill now getting marked up in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (HELP) is not going anywhere.
Note that the economy has seemed to stabilize, more or less, and well under ten percent of the stimulus money has been spent to date. Moving forward, if no further major programs will be put into place, how would you like to spend the rest of that cash?
Seriously.
But Tyler, that cash doesn't exist yet. It's debt. Debt isn't money - it's negative money.
My grandmother, advocate of the turn of the century (that’s early 1900’s) democratic socialism based in defense of the little guy from rampant big business, taught me that the biggest myth in America is the efficiency of big business.So, government grew in regulations and programs, and so did unions, to counter big business and favor the little guy.‘Till now it’s a truism that big government is inefficient and too little the friend of the little guy, and big unions are money founts for their leaders at the expense of labor having jobs.Meanwhile, big business has more and more become an ally of big government and unions to divide the spoils, and stifle competition and innovation.All that leaves to maneuver for the little guy against the increasing encroachments of the biggies is small business and individuals.
It’s time for more small businesspeople and individuals to defy the biggies with a chant of I am Spartacus, or I am an American.
(No, I didn’t purposely ignore big academia.It has made itself largely irrelevant via meaningless coursework enriching self-serving pedants.)
Consider a few datapoints:
Investigative journalist Tim Carney reminds usthat in 1993 the biggest insurers supported Hillarycare, to shift liability risk onto taxpayers and profit from claims-processing contracts.Small insurers, brokers who work with small companies, and individuals revolted.Today, the big insurers are again cooperating with the government-dictated health care advocates, as long as the big insurers can profit from more premium payers steered their way.
The Canadian medical societies remind us not to go north for a model of government-dictated health care, as the waits are excessive by even long-wait standards approved by the government.
The former Chief Economist of the US Chamber of Commerce reminds us (sorry, a subscription only column) that when government as umpire controls a team, bad and self-serving calls are to be expected.
Michelle Malkin reminds us that Mrs. Obama and President Obama’s chief political operative worked to reduce care for the poor, to enrich her employer (and her compensation).
Mickey Kaus reminds us that unions are to be exempted from Obamacare, and further benefit from attracting members through higher benefits than the rest of us.
The CEO of the consumer highest-rated insurer in the US reminds us that he doesn’t so much fear government-plan competition but, “more about the federal government’s ability to do this at all, much less do it well. Merely coordinating basic demographic information between Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - three big federal programs that millions of Americans belong to - can be a chore for beneficiaries, their children, and their health plans.”
Be Spartacus.Say "I am American.I refuse to be pushed around by the biggies, or under their thumb."
Write or call your congressional representatives to represent your views.
"Green jobs" 
"The song's lyrics describe the title establishment as a luxury resort where 'you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.'
N. Korea threatens to 
Enjoyably humorous 
Continual Iran updates at 
