Friday, April 30, 2010

Mexico On The Ropes - American Gov. Indifferent

Obama must see the unrest in Mexico as a serious threat to our boarders and national security, right? Not so fast. The Obama administration sees this conflict as another opportunity to take advantage of a crisis. How does the saying go, "where there is chaos there is profit". Rom Emanuel said it best, it went something like 'a crisis is too good to be wasted'. If it put the nation at risk, so what. It is just another opportunity to gain power and control over others.

In the end, the people, now the states with the approval of the people, 70% of the entire population agrees, are taking the power away from the federals and hopefully before it destroys us all. Choas on top of choas.

Border disorder
Last Updated: 4:39 AM, April 29, 2010Posted: 12:21 AM, April 29, 2010

South of the border, down Mexico way, a new and savage revolution rages just beyond our inspection lanes. After less than five years of fighting, estimates of the dead have reached 22,000. The rate of killing accelerates each month. And Washington covers its eyes like a kid at a scary movie. Well, the Mexican narco-insurgency, in which well-armed guerrilla forces confront the authority and presence of the state, is our No. 1 security challenge.

The chaos in northern Mexico has far deeper implications for our country than Islamist terror or even an Iranian nuclear capability (as grim as those threats are). The rule of law has collapsed from Tijuana on the Pacific's edge to Matamoros and the Gulf of Mexico. Major cities are now "ungoverned spaces," as our diplomats refer tidily to distant trouble spots. More people now die violently on our southern border than in Somalia, Yemen or even Afghanistan. But Washington doesn't know what to do about Mexico. So Washington does nothing much.

Our ruling class simply doesn't feel the pain. So the DC elite demonizes Arizona's desperate effort to shove the narco-revolution's disorder back across the border. Murdered ranchers, overwhelmed emergency rooms and soaring crime rates in our border states mean less to the White House than a terrorist detainee's claims of abuse. Our governing elite pretends that illegal immigration, torrential crime where illegals cluster, overcrowded prisons, Mexico's narco-insurgency, legal cross-border commerce and the drug trade are separate issues, to be addressed discreetly.

But these issues are all interwoven with the Mexican government's existential crisis. Drug wealth fuels criminal empires. Those narco-empires are now so powerful that they've risen against the state. Human trafficking is a useful sideline for drug lords. And illegal immigration drives crime rates in bankruptcy-threatened US cities and states.

Cross-border trade's the next target. Narco-insurgents now feel sufficiently confident to attack Mexican army installations and US consulates. The maquiladoras, those thousands of assembly plants along the border, won't escape the mayhem. Given their enormous contribution to Mexico's fiscal stability and employment rates, those plants are obvious targets as the narco-challenge to the state intensifies.

Mexican journalists, too, have been killed by the hundreds. Their torture and execution doesn't generate much excitement north of the border, though. It's their bad luck to be butchered by Mexican narcos. Had they been killed accidentally by US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, they'd be famous martyrs.

And Arizona's "discriminatory" new state law empowering police to pursue criminal aliens? Should Phoenix let the rule of law collapse because Washington prefers political correctness to public safety? In DC, it's about politics. In Arizona, it's about survival.

It bewilders me that my fellow citizens don't take the disintegration of government authority in northern Mexico seriously. As I've written repeatedly, no country is more important to us socially, economically and security-wise than Mexico. Afghanistan's fluff by comparison.

Precisely 100 years ago, in 1910, the Mexican Revolution erupted in northern Mexico -- already the most prosperous and industrially developed portion of the country. That revolution lasted a bloody, destructive decade. It wasn't the bandido affair beloved of Hollywood knuckleheads, but a complex contest for power with large armies, strategic campaigns, major battles, trench warfare, barbed wire and machine guns. In 1915, the military vision of the self-taught Gen. Alvaro Obregon -- destined to become Mexico's president -- was more sophisticated than that of the US Army. Mexico pioneered the 20th century's revolutions.

Since then, northern Mexico -- from the border cities southward through the industrial powerhouse of Monterrey -- has continued to be the country's primary agent of change. Influenced by its proximity to America, the north long has been a different country from the impoverished states south of the capital.

Now a new Mexican revolution is underway in the vital north. In 1910, idealists struggled to change an autocratic regime. In 2010, criminal syndicates fight to wrest power from a democratic government and to grab market share from each other.(In an eerie parallel, a bloody strike in the northern mining center of Cananea helped ignite the 1910 revolution; today, a three-year-long strike in Cananea by mining and metal workers signals a new generation's impatience with the status quo -- and we're just not paying attention.)

During that earlier revolution, the citizens of El Paso, Texas, and Douglas, Arizona, gathered to watch the battles just across the border as Pancho Villa's troops drove out the Federals, then as the Constitutionalists defeated Villa. Those spectators were confident in their immunity as American citizens.We're no longer immune.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "Endless War."NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, , , and are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Tax Burden High For Most States

Little wonder most states have high unemployment as taxes suck the life out of the population. Do the politicians see this as a determent to revenue intake? Nah!

I would like to know just what states that have huge unemployment are controlled by Democrats.

April 28, 2010
Source: Jason Clemens and Robert Murphy, "The Most Tax-Burdened States," Forbes, April 26, 2010.

Most Americans are bluntly aware that taxes matter. Unfortunately, too many politicians and bureaucrats have forgotten that taxes change the incentives for people to work hard, save, invest and be entrepreneurial. As the nation struggles with a sluggish recovery and deficits, it's worth noting the tax differences across the states, says Forbes magazine.

In "Taxifornia," the new study by the Pacific Research Institute, the authors look at two distinct aspects of tax policy: burden and structure. In other words, the study examines how many resources a government consumes from the economy and how, exactly, the state extracts those resources. The premise is that both the tax burden and manner of imposition influence behavior and economic performance.

For example, the total burden of government was calculated by comparing total state and local spending as a share of the state economy (gross state product): South Dakota had the lowest burden of government (11.6 percent of the state's economy); other low-burden states include Delaware and Texas.

Alaska had the largest burden of government (20.2 percent of the state's economy consumed by government spending); other large burden states are South Carolina, California, New York and New Mexico.

The second component of the study looked at the structure or design of five major taxes: personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, capital-based taxes, sales taxes and property taxes:

Delaware ranked first overall for its structure of taxes with a score of 7.7 out of a possible 10.
Other high ranking states included South Dakota, Nevada and Alabama.
New Jersey ranked last for its tax design (score of 2.8); Maine, Vermont and Rhode Island also ranked low.

When burden and structure are combined to calculate an overall score, South Dakota achieves the highest rank with a score of 8.8 (out of possible 10). Delaware, Texas and Louisiana also rank high. California (score of 3.1) along with South Carolina and New York are the lowest ranked states, combining a relatively large burden of government with a poorly structured tax system, says Forbes.

It should not be surprising, then, to learn that both California and South Carolina are facing historically high unemployment with shockingly high underemployment. Both are signs of a struggling economy, in many ways explained by the economic incentives embedded in the tax system, says Forbes.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Marriage Is Give and Take - Good Humor - Yikes

These are good exchanges between man and women - mostly the men are the fall guys in these humorous exchanges but then a lot of time they have it coming.


Marriage (Part I )

Typical macho man married typical good-looking lady, and
after the wedding, he laid down the following rules:
"I'll be home when I want, if I want and at what time
I want -- and I don't expect any hassle from you.
I expect a great dinner to be on the table unless
I tell you that I won't be home for dinner.
I'll go hunting, fishing, boozing, and card-playing
when I want with my old buddies, and don't you
give me a hard time about it.
Those are my rules. Any comments?"

His new bride said:
"No, that's fine with me. Just understand that there
will be sex here at seven o'clock every
night....whether you're here or not."



Marriage (Part II)

Husband and wife had a bitter quarrel on the day of their 40th wedding anniversary!
The husband yells, "When you die, I'm getting you a headstone
that reads, 'Here Lies My Wife -- Cold As Ever'!"
"Yeah?" she replies. "When you die, I'm getting you a headstone
that reads,
'Here Lies My Husband -- Stiff At Last'!"



Marriage (Part III)

Husband (a doctor) and his wife are having a fight at the breakfast table.
Husband gets up in a rage and says, "And you are no
good in bed either," and storms out of the house.

After some time he realizes he was nasty and
decides to make amends and rings her up.

She comes to the phone after many rings, and the irritated husband says,
"What took you so long to answer to the phone?"

She says, "I was in bed."

"In bed this early, doing what?"

"Getting a second opinion!"



Marriage (Part IV)

A man has six children and is very proud of his achievement.
He is so proud of himself, that he starts calling his wife," Mother of Six"
in spite of her objections.
One night, they go to a party. The man decides that it IS time to go
home and wants to find out if his wife is ready to leave as well.
He shouts at the top of his voice, "Shall we go home Mother of Six?"

His wife, irritated by her husband's lack of discretion,
shouts right back, "Any time you're ready, Father of Four.."



The Silent Treatment

A man and his wife were having some problems at home
and were giving each other the silent treatment.
Suddenly the man realized that the next day he would need his wife
to wake him at 5:00 AM for an early morning business flight.
Not wanting to be the first to break the silence (and LOSE),
So he wrote on a piece of paper,
"Please wake me at 5:00 AM." He left it where he knew she would find it.

The next morning the man woke up, only to discover it
was 9:00 AM and he had missed his flight. Furious,
he was about to go to see why his wife hadn't wakened him when he
noticed a piece of paper by the bed.
The paper said, "It is 5:00 AM. Wake up."



God may have created man before woman,
but there is always a rough draft before the masterpiece.

Ford Mustanges Moving Ahead of ALL Competition!

Here is just a little back ground on the new GT/ Shelby GT 500 for 2011 - what a fantastic car - Ford is moving ahead and just leaving the competition in the dust!

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Al Gore's Desperate Youth Initiative : A Jim Jones Congregation Set-Up?

Will the hypocrisy ever end? In the face of all of the revelations of fraud and out lies about climate change, these people forge ahead without missing a beat. Al Gore is really desperate to have to target the young with his psychosis.

Can there be people that still believe? Is climate change a mental sickness? Is Al Gore mentally stable or is it just plain greed for money and power.

It's a religion of self delusion and ignorance for sure, much like the Jim Jones acolytes in Africa, and we all know what happened to them. Hopefully it won't end the same way for American youth that fall for his agenda.

Al Gore Targeting Youth

An environmental group founded by former Vice President Al Gore has launched an effort to enlist young people in his crusade to deal with the “climate crisis.”
The effort, called Inconvenient Youth, was initiated on Thursday, Earth Day, by The Climate Project, Gore’s Nashville, Tenn.-based group.

“Inconvenient Youth is built on the belief that teens can help lead efforts to solve the climate crisis,” Gore said in a statement. “It will give this generation — which has a unique stake in this issue — a chance to organize and exchange ideas with other young people who want to do their part to address the climate crisis.

“Perhaps most importantly, this initiative was inspired by youth and shaped by youth with their unique viewpoint guiding it forward.” The name “Inconvenient Youth” plays off the title of Gore’s book and documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Teens who want to get involved can go to Inconvenient Youth’s website before May 15 and apply to be taught by Gore at The Climate Project’s next training session in June, The Tennessean reports.

Teens who are selected will present a slide show to their communities based on Gore’s latest book, “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis.”
The Climate Project, begun in 2006, claims to have more than 3,000 presenters worldwide.

California Retirees Live Like Kings? : Ask Taxpayers!

Public sector unions are in trouble - but not to worry - there is always the taxpayers ready to bail them out. But are they willing participants? hmmmm The problem is many of the taxpayers are "former" taxpayers as they have been laid off.

Now who will pay the fantastic union pensions? Will the money come from Obama's stash? You tell me!

Source: Editorial, "Public-sector unions bankrupting America; State and local governments face looming pension crisis," Washington Times, April 23, 2010.

Usually it takes a national government to spend itself into a debt measured in the trillions. Yet it comes as little surprise that the same profligacy that pervades the corridors of federal power infects this country's 87,000 state, county and municipal governments and school districts.

By 2013, the amount of retirement money promised to employees of these public entities will exceed cash on hand by more than a trillion dollars, says the Washington Times.

That's according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, which earlier this month released a troubling analysis of 126 state and local pension plans:
The center's researchers found in the wake of the stock market collapse that measures of pension program solvency hit a 15-year low with no signs of improvement on the horizon.
This means taxpayers will be left picking up the tab.

The reason pension plans are headed toward financial disaster is simple, says the Times:
Ever-expanding public-sector unions have flexed their political muscle and larded up with lavish benefits to be paid out decades from now. In a properly run, private-sector business, future retirement benefits are paid for using present-day contributions.

This is not the case when lawmakers have the power to boost public-employee benefit packages while using accounting gimmicks to conceal and pass on the debt to future generations.
California's public-employee retirement system stands in the most perilous condition, facing a half-trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities, says the Times:

That's not surprising when you consider a California highway patrol officer can retire at age 50 and collect up to 90 percent of his salary for the rest of his life.

According to the agency's website, a typical officer's pay will reach $109,147 after just five years on duty -- an amount that can rise significantly with overtime benefits.

That means a fit and healthy 50-year-old "retiree" who began work at age 20 would receive $98,232 a year from taxpayers for the rest of his life, and nothing prevents him from taking another government job to collect two paychecks; this form of double-dipping is rampant.

Monday, April 26, 2010

National Health Care Results : Fewer Doctors - Fewer Patients

Again, unintended consequences or intended? Not enough doctors to go around but who is to care if our fearless leaders have all the care they need. If the rest of the country slowly runs out of doctors, well that is a problem but not to worry, this problem will brought to committee next month in Washington where a blue ribbon panel of experts will discuss solutions.

Goodness, I feel better already!

What a great way to bring all citizens of America to heel - shut off access to health care if you don't bend the knee to government control. Who knew?

Source: Debra Beaulieu, "States assess health law's impact on physician shortages," Fierce Healthcare, April 12, 2010.

The consensus generally indicates that health reform will exacerbate current or looming physician shortages across the country, particularly in primary care. Long term, the nation may see a shortage of about 160,000 physicians by 2025, reports the American Medical News.

Although the health law includes provisions to get more medical students enrolled, states worry they may not be able to beat the clock, says Fierce Healthcare:

Mississippi, already suffering the worst doctor shortage in the country, will have an additional 500,000 insured patients in 2014 when the individual health insurance mandate takes effect.

The University of Mississippi Medical Center -- the state's only medical school, which already produces half of its physicians -- has been working to increase enrollment.

In March, the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine in Lubbock, Texas, announced a three-year family medicine track medical degree.
But medical schools alone cannot resolve the primary care shortage, there have to be several different approaches, says Fierce Healthcare.

Another approach, for example, may mean physicians experimenting with delegating more responsibility to nonphysician practitioners, said Dr. Richard "Buz" Cooper, professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and co chair of the Council on Physician and Nurse Supply.

"We are going to have a lot more insured people, and it isn't only that they'll be getting routine services," Cooper said. "These people aren't routine. They have a lifelong reservoir of poor health," says Fierce Healthcare.

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Federal Reserve Scamming Taxpayers?

The Federal Reserve has never been audited? This is a non-federally controlled institution but congress still uses it to spend our money without any consequences?

Read this short history of the Federal Reserve and then give some thought to how we can change how congress does business in this country.

Liberal Socialist Agenda : Drunkin' Sailors Show More Sense

Why is it that the military always seems to have the right answer for most situations, but our government almost always falls short of common sense?
Ponder this question for a few minutes and then think about health care, immigration, foreign policy and any other aspect of government involvement in our lives.
Why would we want them anywhere near the controls that effect how we live our lives or having them make decisions about our future?

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Sen. Grassley Says GM Doing "Shuffle" With TARP Money

Obama is using taxpayers money to fool the American public again. GM, Government Motors, really didn't pay back the loan - the Obama administration just shuffled some "troubled assets" funds from one hand to the other but claimed they all came from sales at GM.

Could we expected more from a government run institution? Only if you are on drugs!

Grassley Slams GM, Administration Over Loans Repaid With Bailout Money
Fox News

A top Senate Republican on Thursday accused the Obama administration of misleading taxpayers about General Motors' loan repayment, saying the struggling auto giant was only able to repay its bailout money by dipping into a separate pot of bailout money.

Sen. Chuck Grassley's charge was backed up by the inspector general for the bailout -- also known as the Trouble Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Watchdog Neil Barofsky told Fox News, as well as the Senate Finance Committee, that General Motors used bailout money to pay back the federal government.

"It appears to be nothing more than an elaborate TARP money shuffle," Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a letter Thursday to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

GM announced Wednesday that it had paid back the $8.1 billion in loans it received from the U.S. and Canadian governments. Of that, $6.7 billion went to the U.S. treasury. But Grassley said in his letter that a Securities and Exchange Commission form filed by GM showed that $6.7 billion of the tens of billions the company received was sitting in an escrow account and available to be used for repayment. He called on Geithner to provide more information about why the company was allowed to use bailout money to repay bailout money, and how much of the remaining escrow money GM would be allowed to keep.

"The bottom line seems to be that the TARP loans were 'repaid' with other TARP funds in a Treasury escrow account. The TARP loans were not repaid from money GM is earning selling cars, as GM and the administration have claimed in their speeches, press releases and television commercials," he wrote.

Vice President Biden on Wednesday called the GM repayment a "huge accomplishment."
But Barofsky told Fox News that while it's "somewhat good news," there's a big catch.
"I think the one thing that a lot of people overlook with this is where they got the money to pay back the loan. And it isn't from earnings. ... It's actually from another pool of TARP money that they've already received," he said Wednesday. "I don't think we should exaggerate it too much. Remember that the source of this money is just other TARP money."

Barofsky told the Senate Finance Committee the same thing Tuesday, and said the main way for the federal government to earn money out of GM would be through "a liquidation of its ownership interest."

Grassley criticized this scenario in his letter. "The taxpayers are still on the hook, and whether TARP funds are ultimately recovered depends entirely on the government's ability to sell GM stock in the future. Treasury has merely exchanged a legal right to repayment for an uncertain hope of sharing in the future growth of GM. A debt-for-equity swap is not a repayment," he wrote.

Friday, April 23, 2010

Obama VAT Tax Spells Economic Ruin - For Everyone

A VAT is a good thing - but first all other taxes must be cancelled including the income tax. We can't have this tax on top of all the other taxes that we have already plus the new ones Obama has in mind. Oh and we have to cut spending as well.

Will it happen - I doubt it.

Source: Robert J. Samuelson, "The VAT isn't an easy fix for budget woes," Washington Post, April 19, 2010.

The VAT, or value-added tax, has become the designated panacea for massive federal budget deficits. The implicit, though often unstated, message is that a VAT could raise so much money it could eliminate future deficits by itself. This reasoning, if embraced, would create staggering tax burdens and exempt us from a debate we desperately need, says Robert J. Samuelson.

How big a government do we want -- and what can we afford? In closing deficits, what is the best mix between tax increases and spending cuts? What programs are outmoded, ineffective or unneeded? How much should we tax the young and middle-aged to support the elderly? Should wealthier retirees receive skimpier benefits? Should eligibility ages for benefits be raised?
A VAT could not painlessly fill this void, says Samuelson:

Applied to all consumption spending -- about 70 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) -- the required VAT rate would equal about 8 percent. However, the actual increase might be closer to 16 percent because there would be huge pressures to exempt groceries, rent and housing, health care, education and charitable groups.

As for a VAT's claimed benefits (simplicity, promotion of investment), these depend mainly on a VAT replacing the present complex income tax that discriminates against investment. Europe's widespread VATs are not models of simplicity, says Samuelson:

Among the European Union's 27 members, the basic rate varies from 15 percent (Cyprus, Luxembourg) to 25 percent (Denmark, Hungary and Sweden). In Ireland, food is taxed at three rates (zero, 4.8 percent and 13.5 percent).

In the Netherlands, hotels are taxed at 6 percent.

A VAT will not reduce deficits painlessly; deficit reduction cannot be painless. We will need both spending cuts and tax increases. A VAT might be the least bad tax, but what is wrong with the simplistic VAT advocacy is that it deemphasizes spending cuts, says Samuelson.

New Political Disease Found : Gonorrhea Lectim

Luckily for our country, there are many who saw this coming and protected themselves by watching Fox News and listening to Talk Radio. Being informed and there by armed to defend ones self was the antidote to this infectious disease.

According to experts, the only way to prevent further infection is to know the truth. History has shown this to be effective.

(Author Unknown)

Gonorrhea Lectim (A new disease effecting much of the our nation. Experts believe it effectively started late 2007 but didn't really become a population threat until 2008.)

This is very important information has just been made public that I think is something you should all be aware of: Gonorrhea Lectim (pronounced "Gonna re-elect 'em.")

The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of this old disease. The disease is contracted through dangerous and high risk behavior involving putting your cranium up your rectum. Many victims contracted it in 2008 ... but now most people after having been infected for the past 1-2 years are starting to realize how destructive this sickness is.

It's sad because it is so easily cured with a new procedure just coming on the market called Vo-tem-out! You take the first dose/step in 2010 and the second dosage in 2012 and simply don't engage in such behavior again; otherwise it could become permanent and eventually wipe out all life as we know it. Several states are already on top of this like Virginia and New Jersey, and apparently now Massachusetts with many more seeing the writing on the wall.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Earth Day - Environmental Successes : Free Markets

Happy Earth Day!! Just when you thought being a socialist was best for all concerns to make a life free from responsibility, someone says you have to give up your clean environment so others can eat and not freeze to death. hmmmm Environmental successes?

On the other hand, our socialist leaders may say we have too many people now, so if we lose a few, maybe we can have a clean environment as well - wow - who knew?

Hey, it certainly looks like socialism is just the ticket to "having it all".

Source: James Taylor, "Celebrate Earth's Best Friend," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, April 18, 2010.

This Earth Day we are reminded of the value of environmental protection. Clean air, clean water, species protection, and pristine wilderness are items we all value. The United States, relative to most of the world, is exceptionally blessed with each of these environmental goods.

This Earth Day we should all celebrate the single most important factor in making all these environmental goods possible: the free market, says James M. Taylor, a senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.

Only a wealthy society can afford the economic sacrifices necessary to put expensive scrubbers on smokestacks, to build and maintain the infrastructure necessary to sustain clean waterways, and to set aside productive lands for conservation and species protection. And the wealthiest nations are those that respect and nurture market freedom.

How stark is the difference in environmental quality between nations that encourage the market and those that stifle it?

A study published in the January issue of the science journal Nature documents that so much pollution from Asia is crossing the Pacific Ocean that U.S. ozone levels are rising even though U.S. ozone precursor emissions are declining.

States in the western United States are having difficulty meeting federal ozone standards because pollution from relatively poor nations in East Asia is offsetting declines in U.S. emissions.

For nations such as China, India, Bangladesh, Laos and Vietnam -- each languishing in the bottom third of the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom World Rankings -- imposing expensive environmental mandates on citizens who cannot afford food, clothing and shelter is not an option. Western-style environmental protections first require Western-style wealth. And Western-style wealth was made possible, and will remain possible, only through free markets and economic liberty, says Taylor.

The extent to which current and future generations of Americans can afford environmental protections that are nonexistent in the rest of the world will depend primarily on the extent to which our government allows free markets to flourish.

More intrusive government regulations, higher taxes and penalties on financial success may be motivated by good intentions, but the real-world impact always has been, and always will be, to stifle economic growth and reduce the amount of societal wealth that can be devoted to environmental protection, says Taylor.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Fort Hood Presidential Visit : George Bush

George Bush went to Fort Hood just after the shooting and not one publicans covered this and he was there for six hours? And the White house called and asked him to leave? What?

Is this true? snoops?

(Author Unknown)

The doctor had his TV on in his office when the news of the military base shootings at Ft. Hood, TX came on. The husband of one of his employees was stationed there.

He called her into his office and as he told her what had happened, she got a text message from her husband saying, "I am okay." Her cell phone rang right after she read the message. It was an ER nurse,” I’m the one who just sent you a text, not your husband. I thought it would be comforting but I was mistaken in doing so. I am sorry to tell you this, but your husband has been shot 4 times and he is in surgery.

"The soldier’s wife left Southern Clinic in Dothan, AL and drove all night to Ft.Hood. When she arrived, she found out her husband was out of surgery and would be OK. She rushed to his room and found that he already had visitors there to comfort him. He was just waking up and found his wife and the visitors by his side.

What? No news crews and cameras? This is how people with class respond and pay respect to those in uniform. I sent my cousin in Fayetteville, N.C. (Retired from Special Forces) that picture of Geo. W. visiting the wounded at Ft. Hood.

I got this reply: What is even better is the fact George W. Bush heard about Fort Hood, got in his car without any escort, apparently they did not have time to react, and drove to Fort Hood. He was stopped at the gate and the guard could not believe who he had just stopped. Bush only asks for directions to the hospital then drove on. The gate guard called that "The President is on Fort Hood and driving to the hospital."

The base went bananas looking for Obama. When they found it was Bush, they immediately offered escort. Bush simply told them to shut up and let him visit the wounded and the dependents of the dead. He stayed at Fort Hood for over six hours, and was finally asked to leave by a message from the White House.

Obama flew in days later and held a "photo" session in a gym, and did not even go to the hospital.

All this I picked up from two soldiers here who happened to be at Fort Hood when it happened. This Bush/Obama/Ft. Hood story is something that should be sent to every voter in the US. Those who wanted "change" certainly got it. Someone, PLEASE, show me anything that will tell us that Obama has ANY respect for the country he leads! I'm looking for just a little sign of respect!

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Obama's White House Accouting Slight of Hand

Cooking the books is something they do in Chicago or New Orleans - you know, areas of the country that have been controlled for decades by Democrats, corrupt and illegitimate criminal politicians.

Now we have these same people in the White House doing their magic on the entire country. Did this come as a surprise? To all of the millions that voted for Obama, are you surprised?

(see graph)

White House Caught Altering Stimulus Baseline Projection by 7 million Jobs

The number of jobs in the U.S. is currently 129.7 million. So to justify the Administration’s current claim of 2.8 million jobs “created or saved” by stimulus, they need to also claim that without that stimulus there would be only 126.9 million jobs. That’s exactly what they do, displayed as the “baseline projection” level in the graphic below from an April 14, 2010 report:

An inconvenient truth, at least for the Obama Administration, is that once upon a time, in their January 2009 Romer/Bernstein Report they told America that without their stimulus there would be 133.9 million jobs. That’s right, in order to make it look like their stimulus has “created or saved” 2.8 million jobs, the Obama Administration first had to whack 7 million jobs from their previous estimates.

Here’s the math:

Step 1: How many jobs does the Administration currently claim there would be, without stimulus?
129.7 million Current number of U.S. jobs
- 2.8 million Jobs currently claimed to be “created or saved”
126.9 million Jobs the Administration currently claims there would be without stimulus

Step 2: How does that compare with the number of jobs the Administration used to say there would be without stimulus?

133.9 million January 2009 projection of jobs without stimulus - 126.9 million Current claim of jobs without stimulus = 7 million Jobs removed from the Administration “baseline” to justify their latest stimulus job creation claims

Here’s the story problem:

This year 11-year old Jane’s class is studying money and budgets. In September every student wrote down their savings, and what they wanted in savings by the end of school in June. Jane started with $134, but wants to do better and have $137 ($3 more) saved by year’s end. She figures that will be easy, since she will get birthday money in a few months. But now it’s late May, and Jane has only $130, because she spent her birthday money, and then some. What should Jane do in her final report on the savings project?

Be honest and admit she didn’t reach her goals of $3 more in savings, totaling $137, due to her spending habits; or Say at the start of the year she only “really” thought she would have $127 saved by year’s end, and claim “success” for ending up with $3 more than that and see if her teacher notices.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Obama Porposes Changes for New Bill of Rights

Little wonder why the nation is rising up against our government. Obama is definitely "Historical" - it's the first time the people are under attack by the government and now the people are pushing back.

Truly historic - Never before has this happen on such a scale. And guess what, it's going to get bigger.

Government Control of Education : Fundamental Change

This appears to be just one more item to take control of all aspects of life in this country. And what a great place to start the reeducation of the population with total government control - our schools. Of course, our schools already have a large number of leaders that what to "fundamentally" change education.

You decide what is best for our kids.

Source: Julie Borowski, "Obama's Education Plan Against Parental School Choice,", March 1, 2010.

President Barack Obama is offering $900 million in grants to states and school districts to turn around low-performing schools. The White House asserted that the $900 million will target the nation's soaring dropout rate. In fact, 1.2 million students drop out of high school each year -- that is 7,000 a day, says FreedomWorks.

Since 1965, American taxpayers have spent $2 trillion on public education. In inflation-adjusted dollars, federal education spending per student has practically tripled. So what effect will Obama's $900 million education grant have on student achievement? Chances are that this money will make absolutely no difference.

According to a research by Cato Institute's Andrew J. Coulson, there are no positive correlations between federal spending per pupil and test scores in reading, math or science, says FreedomWorks. In order to receive the federal money, states will have to choose one of these methods to fix a failing school:

Turnaround Model: The school district must replace the principal and at least half of the school staff, adopt a new governance structure for the school, and implement a new or revised instructional program.

Restart Model: The school district must close and reopen the school under the management of a charter school operator, a charter management organization or an educational management organization; a restarted school would be required to enroll, within the grades it serves, former students who wish to attend.

School Closure: The school district must close the failing school and enroll the students in other, higher-achieving schools in the district.

Transformational Model: The school must address four areas, including teacher effectiveness, instruction, learning and teacher planning time, and operational flexibility.

All of these options, however, grant the federal government more power over education while restricting the choices of parents, teachers and students.

In order to have a true impact on student achievement and reduce dropout rates, school choice needs to be implemented through methods such as school vouchers and private scholarship programs, says FreedomWorks.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Putin Foreign Policy Advantage : Western Ignorance / Duplicity

Peters is on the mark here - our government's foreign policy is based on how it will gain political advantage at home. If it destroys the country and or the entire free world, who cares. After all, this is all about getting and keeping power no matter the cost.

And maybe even more important to the dialogs in our government, "fundamentally" changing America.

Putin wins again
April 16, 2010

Jeez, this guy is good. A few years back, I wrote that Russia's Prime Minis ter Vladimir Putin was the most impressive major leader on today's world stage. Since then, he's gotten better. Back then, he was eating President George W. Bush for breakfast. Now he's snacking on President Obama as sushi -- eating him raw, in happy little bites.

Putin's ruthless, unforgiving and murderous. He also has a clear vision of what he wants, the strength of will to get it -- and a stunning ability to spot the weaknesses in his foreign counterparts. Putin's the Evil Empire's belated answer to President Ronald Reagan. Where the Gipper focused uncompromisingly on bringing down the Soviet imperium, Putin focuses uncompromisingly on restoring imperial Russia. And he's making progress, as US leaders and their advisers bumble and stumble along with neither a clear strategic vision nor a rational sense of foreign-policy priorities.

Putin doesn't seem like a man much given to hilarity, but he must be laughing his butt off at our incompetence. Consider his strategic achievements in just the last few months:

* He cunningly let Obama bamboozle himself into a gotta-have-it-now Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that damages US /conventional/ capabilities while Russia gives up only old junk it needed to dump anyway.

* He cut /another/ arms deal with Hugo Chavez, selling the unstable Venezuelan 5 billion more bucks' worth of weapons -- on top of 4 billion already contracted. It's an unprecedented armament program for South America, supporting Chavez's bellicose "Bolivarian" goal of "re-uniting" Venezuela and Colombia.

* Putin finally got his pawn into power in Ukraine, erasing the westward orientation of yesteryear's Orange Revolution. Bringing Ukraine back inside Russia's borders remains Putin's top priority. He just took a giant step toward achieving it.

* Putin also drew Kazakhstan -- the keystone Central Asian state and a major energy supplier -- closer to Moscow.

* Last week, Putin supported the overthrow of the US-backed government of Kyrgyzstan, tightening his chokehold on our northern supply route into Afghanistan. The Obama administration was utterly blindsided ("Where's Kyrgyzstan?").

* The crash of an aircraft carrying Poland's fiercely anti-Russian president and his key advisers may have been just amazingly good luck on Putin's part, but it's the kind of luck to which we should pay attention. Russia's neighbors certainly have.

* Domestically, Putin continued extending his control over the economy and the media. (What, no protests from Western journalistic colleagues?) An artful sniper, not a clumsy bomber, he kills or imprisons when "necessary," but doesn't purge the Russian masses. (The only problem he hasn't been able to hammer down has been domestic Islamist terrorism -- where he meets his match in strength of will.)

* On Iran, Putin's a savvy old tomcat toying with the Obama mouse. While Moscow's overt, covert and clandestine trade with Tehran continues, Putin does his good-cop/bad-cop routine with President Dmitry Medvedev, keeping hope alive in the White House that, this time, Russia will finally back meaningful sanctions.

Sarah Palin will sign on with Code Pink first.

Meanwhile, our president continues to play into Putin's hands. At this week's Nuclear Vanity Summit (which accomplished /nothing/), Obama snubbed Georgia's president, Mikhail Saakashvili. Putin will read that as license to renew his aggression against the struggling democracy in Tbilisi (first Kyrgyzstan, then Georgia?). Obama had time for Putin's Ukrainian puppet, President Viktor Yanukovych, though. And all the while the administration's fighting Russia's drug war in Afghanistan while snoozing through the narco-bloodbath on our own southern border.

A major test for Obama comes this Sunday, when our president will pay our respects at the Krakow funeral of Poland's freedom-loving president. If Obama allows himself to be photographed smoking and joking with Putin or Medvedev at a Polish grave, it'll send a horrible signal throughout a region that only escaped Moscow's terror two decades ago.

Putin's certainly not a good man. But he is a /great/ man -- perhaps the most capable national leader of our time. He's also a very dangerous man.

The really bad news? I can't spot a single potential president in either of our political parties who'd be a match for the guy.It's heartbreaking when an old KGB hand consistently triumphs over the products of the mediocrity mills our moribund political parties have become.

Ralph Peters' new book is "Endless War."/NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, , , and are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

American Corporation Tax Prep Costs UP 40%

Slowly but surely America is moving into the "Also Ran" column. The Progressives are grinding us down to a point where we might not be able to return.

Paul Ryan called it the "Tipping Point", the place where we can not cure the problem as it will be all consuming. Is he right? Can this happen in America? Is it happening right now?

You decide.

Source: Editorial, "We're Number 61! In terms of ease of paying taxes," Wall Street Journal, April 15, 2010.

The U.S. corporate income tax is about as bad as can be. This year, American businesses may spend 89 cents preparing their taxes for every dollar they pay in taxes, says the Wall Street Journal.

According to David Keating of the National Taxpayers Union:

The cost of compliance with the corporate tax is $159.4 billion -- or 89 percent of expected tax collections for fiscal 2009, and 54 percent for 2008. That includes the administrative burden, reporting requirements, accounting costs and all the rest.

In one of those tax facts that have become famous, General Electric's 2007 tax form ran to some 24,000 pages; though GE files electronically, a spokeswoman says that "sounds about right to us."

The National Taxpayers Union estimate is admittedly back of the envelope, extrapolated from the IRS's estimate of the hourly paperwork burden and the average wages of tax accountants, and obviously the 89 percent figure is higher for 2009 because corporate profits were down due to the recession. On the other hand, the tax code gets more complicated every year, and it isn't uncommon even in better times for complying with the tax to cost companies 50 percent of what they pay.

In its 2010 "Doing Business" survey, the World Bank (with PriceWaterhouseCoopers) ranks the United States 61st out of 183 countries in the ease of paying business taxes. That puts America behind the Maldives, Qatar and Hong Kong -- gold, silver and bronze -- but also the likes of Saudi Arabia (No. 7) and Kiribati (No. 10).

Between 2008 and 2009, 45 of the world's economies made it easier for businesses to pay taxes, says the Journal:

A 2010 KPMG-International study ranks the United States eighth out of 10 major countries in overall business conditions, including labor, transportation and tax costs.
Perhaps Congress can take some comfort in the fact that we beat out Congo, Uzbekistan and Venezuela in the World Bank survey.

The rest of the world is reducing its corporate tax rate for competitive reasons, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average is 26.5 percent. But Congress insists on sticking to a 35 percent statutory corporate rate, the second highest in the Western world, while adding so many loopholes that the compliance costs take countless hours and dollars to fulfill, says the Journal.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Health Care Italian Style : COMPETION WORKS!

Our government had been taken hostage by a power unknown to a majority of the US population. A government controled health care system will not work - everyone knows this - history proves this over and over again given the many failures of other government run programs. Pick any one - they all are failures. Overuns, fraud, kickbacks, etc.

Most of us wonder just what insanity has infected so many law makers to rule against the people and then, straight faced, advocate they are doing the public's business.

Who-are-these-people? Where did they come from? Who is controlling them - they can't be doing this out of good conscience, right?

Source: Margherita Stancati, "Competitive Care," The Wall Street Journal, April 13, 2010.

For the past 10 years, public and private hospitals in Lombardy, Italy, have competed directly for patients, and in doing so have created what is considered by many to be one of Europe's most efficient health care systems, says the Wall Street Journal.

Like other European countries, Italy offers universal health care coverage backed by the state:
Italians can go to a public hospital, for example, without involving an insurance company; the patients are charged a small co-pay, but most of the bill is paid by the government. As a result, the great majority of Italians don't bother to buy private health insurance unless they want to seek treatment from private doctors or hospitals, which are relatively few.

Offering guaranteed reimbursements to public hospitals, though, took away the hospitals' incentive to improve service or rein in costs. Inefficiencies were rampant as a result, and the quality of Italy's public health care suffered for years. Months-long waiting lists became the norm for nonemergency procedures -- even heart surgery -- in most of the country.

Big changes came in 1997, when Italy's national government decentralized the country's health care system, giving the regions control over the public money that goes to hospitals within their own borders, says the Journal:

Lombardy has increased its quality standards, set its own reimbursement rates and, most importantly, put public and private hospitals on an equal footing by making each equally eligible for public funds. If a hospital meets the quality standards and charges the accepted reimbursement rate, it qualifies.

Patients are free to choose between state run and publicly funded private hospitals at no extra cost; their co-pay is the same in either case.
As a result, public and many private hospitals in Lombardy compete directly for patients and funds.

Around 30 percent of hospital care in Lombardy is private now -- more than anywhere else in Italy. And service in both the private and public sector has improved. Patients in Lombardy receive among the widest array of treatments in Italy, and are covered for a longer list of prescription drugs than almost anywhere else in Europe. Waiting times were slashed, too, says the Journal.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Bailout of the Union Pensions : More Insanity

Is there no end to the insanity in our government? What's going on here? Where's the common sense. Where's the Constitutional rights of the individual to not have to pay for others to have a good life? Who's responsibility is it save for the future or at least pay attention to what others are doing to your future. Is life just one big party?

Not to worry, the government will take care of us - yeah, remember the people in Detroit waiting in line for a government hand out, were asked where the money was coming from and they answered -"Obama's stash". What?

Come on!! Let's get real here!! Does this mean the majority of this country are ready to used and abused?

Source: Diana Furchtgott-Roth, "Decrying the Union Pension Bailout Bill," Real Clear Markets, April 8, 2010.

Sen. Robert Casey (D-Penn.), wants Americans to bail out union pension plans underfunded by hundreds of billions of dollars. Casey's bill, the Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act of 2010, is similar to that of Reps. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), and Patrick Tiberi (R-Ohio), who seek to bail out pension plans with their proposed Preserve Benefits and Jobs Act of 2009, introduced last fall, says Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a contributing editor of RealClearMarkets and an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Under these bills, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) would, at the request of the plans, have the authority to take over the pension obligations of employers who have withdrawn from the plans, and pay the benefits out of taxpayer dollars, says Furchtgott-Roth:

Once the PBGC shoulders that obligation, it would keep making payments until the last retiree or designated survivor dies. Since many multiemployer plans are in financial difficulty, this legislation, if enacted, could dramatically increase the federal deficit, putting even more pressure on the American taxpayer and the economy.

Depending on events, it might add billions to government spending -- current underfunding levels are estimated at $165 billion-bumping up future deficits.

By bailing out the plans, Congress would compromise the remedial provisions of the Pension Protection Act of 2006. The Act requires underfunded pension plans to put their houses in order by raising retirement ages; increasing contributions by employers, workers, or both; and lowering benefits. A bailout would remove any incentive for multiemployer pension plans to reorganize their plans responsibly, says Furchtgott-Roth:

Neither bill has been voted out of committee and reached the floor of the House or the Senate, nor have hearings been held, however, the bills have generated support from unions and employers.

Unions want to be free of pension obligations so that they can focus on higher wages in future contracts; employers seek to avoid higher contributions.

With deficits stifling the economy, making the taxpayers already in trouble themselves, pay for underfunded pensions is manifestly unfair. Yes, Casey's Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act would save benefits for workers and retirees. But spending billions of taxpayer funds on failed pensions would swell the deficit still further, harming the economy and destroying jobs rather than creating them, says Furchtgott-Roth.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Presidents Wilson, Hoover and FDR all thought controlling the general public to do the governments bidding, government elites know what's best, was the best way to solve the nations financial problems. Socialism.

History shows it didn't work, but the lust for control lingers on as witnessed by the Obama administrations, in the best tradition of past progressives, charge to "fundamentally" change America. Socialism.

Why does it seem so difficult to see and understand what has gone before and learn from those mistakes? The only reason has to be those in charge want to change our entire way of life to meet the goals of an agenda that profess 'everything for everyone' but in reality the agenda of "change" takes everything from everyone. Socialism.

America was founded on personal freedom and the pursuit of happiness. We are a Republic based on laws set forth by our Constitution. The people will decide the outcome.

Did FDR End the Depression?
Mr. Folsom, a professor of history at Hillsdale College, is the author of "New Deal or Raw Deal?" (Simon & Schuster, 2008). Mrs. Folsom is director of //Hillsdale// //College//'s annual Free Market Forum./Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A17Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

WSJ April-12-10

'He got us out of the Great Depression." That's probably the most frequent comment made about President Franklin Roosevelt, who died 65 years ago today. Every Democratic president from Truman to Obama has believed it, and each has used FDR's New Deal as a model for expanding the government.

It's a myth. FDR did not get us out of the Great Depression—not during the 1930s, and only in a limited sense during World War II.

Let's start with the New Deal. Its various alphabet-soup agencies—the WPA, AAA, NRA and even the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority)—failed to create sustainable jobs. In May 1939, U.S. unemployment still exceeded 20%. European countries, according to a League of Nations survey, averaged only about 12% in 1938.

The New Deal, by forcing taxes up and discouraging entrepreneurs from investing, probably did more harm than good. What about World War II? We need to understand that the near-full employment during the conflict was temporary. Ten million to 12 million soldiers overseas and another 10 million to 15 million people making tanks, bullets and war materiel do not a lasting recovery make. The country essentially traded temporary jobs for a skyrocketing national debt. Many of those jobs had little or no value after the war.

No one knew this more than FDR himself. His key advisers were frantic at the possibility of the Great Depression's return when the war ended and the soldiers came home. The president believed a New Deal revival was the answer—and on Oct. 28, 1944, about six months before his death, he spelled out his vision for a postwar America. It included government-subsidized housing, federal involvement in health care, more TVA projects, and the "right to a useful and remunerative job" provided by the federal government if necessary.

Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival. His successor, Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR's ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war.

Congress—both chambers with Democratic majorities—responded by just saying "no." No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits.

Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR's top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%. The lowest rate was cut to 19% from 23%, and with a change in the amount of income exempt from taxation an estimated 12 million Americans were eliminated from the tax rolls entirely.

Corporate tax rates were trimmed and FDR's "excess profits" tax was repealed, which meant that top marginal corporate tax rates effectively went to 38% from 90% after 1945.

Georgia Sen. Walter George, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, defended the Revenue Act of 1945 with arguments that today we would call "supply-side economics." If the tax bill "has the effect which it is hoped it will have," George said, "it will so stimulate the expansion of business as to bring in a greater total revenue."He was prophetic.

By the late 1940s, a revived economy was generating more annual federal revenue than the U.S. had received during the war years, when tax rates were higher. Price controls from the war were also eliminated by the end of 1946. The U.S. began running budget surpluses.

Congress substituted the tonic of freedom for FDR's New Deal revival and the American economy recovered well. Unemployment, which had been in double digits throughout the 1930s, was only 3.9% in 1946 and, except for a couple of short recessions, remained in that range for the next decade.

The Great Depression was over, no thanks to FDR.

Yet the myth of his New Deal lives on. With the current effort by President Obama to emulate some of FDR's programs to get us out of the recent deep recession, this myth should be laid to rest./

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Climate Change Minus Cows

Come on now, does anyone really believe that cows help cause climate change? I mean, in the face of all the misinformation and outright lies that the "Warmers" have shoved down our collective throats, is it possible we can be doped into this kind of insanity over and over again?

It is imperative that we get a grip on common sense and use it more than once in a while when the mood strikes us.

Source: Louise Gray, "Cows absolved of causing global warming with nitrous oxide," The Telegraph, April 8, 2010.

In the past, environmentalists from Lord Stern to Sir Paul McCartney have urged people to stop eating meat because the methane produced by cattle causes global warming. However, a new study found that cattle which grazed on the grasslands of China actually reduced another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide.

Authors of the study, published in Nature, say the research does not mean that producing livestock to eat is good for the environment in all countries. However, in certain circumstances, it can be better for global warming to let animals graze on grassland. The research will reignite the argument over whether to eat red meat after other studies suggested that grass fed cattle in the United Kingdom and the United States can be good for the environment as long as the animals are free range.

Klaus Butterbach-Bahl, of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany, carried out the study in Inner Mongolia in China: He found that grassland produced more nitrous oxide during the spring thaw when sheep or cattle have not been grazing. This is because the greenhouse gas, also known as laughing gas, is released by microbes in the soil.

When the grass is long snow settles keeping the microbes warm and providing water, however when the grass is cut short by animals the ground freezes and the microbes die.
According to Butterbach-Bahl, the study did not take into account the methane produced by the livestock or the carbon dioxide produced if soil erodes. He also pointed out that much of the red meat eaten in the western world is from intensively farmed animals in southern countries.

Lastly, he said the study does not overturn the case for cutting down on red meat but shows grazing livestock is not always bad for global warming.

Monday, April 12, 2010

Massachusetts Health Care In Total Collapse

Who Knew? How can this be? A governor dictating to private companies what they will sell and for how much. The health care system in Massachesetts is gone, in total collapse. I believe this is the tipping point to whether we are a representative republic or a fascists regime.

ObamaCare? It was predicted in Massachusettes and now we know this will be the result for the entire country.

Can't be? Pick up a dictionary for the definition of Fascism!! - or Marxist socialism - now you be the judge as to where we are headed. Maybe it's already to late.

Source: Editorial, "The Massachusetts Insurance Blackout; Insurers go on strike after Deval Patrick imposes price controls," Wall Street Journal, April 9, 2010.

This week it became impossible in Massachusetts for small businesses and individuals to buy health care coverage after Gov. Deval Patrick (D) imposed price controls on premiums. Under ObamaCare this kind of political showdown will soon be coming to an insurance market near you, says the Wall Street Journal.

The Massachusetts small-group market that serves about 800,000 residents shut down after Patrick kicked off his re-election campaign by presumptively rejecting about 90 percent of the premium increases the state's insurers had asked regulators to approve. Health costs have run off the rails since former GOP Gov. Mitt Romney passed universal coverage in 2006, and Patrick now claims price controls are the sensible response to this ostensibly industry greed.

Yet all of the major Massachusetts insurers are nonprofits, says the Journal:

Three of largest four -- Blue Cross Blue Shield, Tufts Health Plan and Fallon Community Health -- posted operating losses in 2009.

In an emergency suit heard in Boston superior court yesterday, they argued that the arbitrary rate cap will result in another $100 million in collective losses this year and make it impossible to pay the anticipated cost of claims. It may even threaten the near-term solvency of some companies, so until the matter is resolved, the insurers have simply stopped selling new policies.

A court decision is expected by Monday, but state officials have demanded that the insurers -- under the threat of fines and other regulatory punishments -- resume offering quotes by today and to revert to year-old base premiums. Let that one sink in, says the Journal: Patrick has made the health insurance business so painful the government actually has to order private companies to sell their products (albeit at sub-market costs).

One irony, says the Journal, is that Patrick's own Attorney General and his insurance regulators have concluded -- to their apparent surprise -- that the reason Massachusetts premiums are the highest in the nation is the underlying cost of health care, not the supposed industry abuses that Patrick and his political mentor President Obama like to cite.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Obama's Socialism A Disaster : Proverbs 24

Here is a great saying that should have a front row seat in the church of reality, but, of course, won't be anywhere near the church of the Obamaites drinking the cool aide of big government socialism.

"Putting things off, making excuses, taking a rest - - no amount of good intentions in the world make up for the lack of self-discipline and the result is poverty, frustration and broken relationships."

- - and this from the good book, the Bible, Proverbs 24 : 33, 34

"A little sleep, a little slumber, and a little folding of the hands to rest - and poverty will come on you like a bandit, and scarcity like an armed man."

Environmentalist Agenda Exposed : Just A Grab for Power

Feinstein's legislation to block the wind farms and solar displays in California is a good thing for those of us that want real resource development, not a subsidized fantasy that will not help this country build new sources of energy for the future.

But the environmentalists come front and center here to stop the other environmentalists that demand no more oil, coal, nuclear or even natural gas fired power plants, supporting openly only green, totally renewable energy resources located in areas that don't offend the eye. Give me a break. Feinstein has other motivations as well as and that her voting base. The country be damned.

This fight among the environs is about the power to control all aspects of our lives by controlling all energy resources. Isn't it a little unsettling that so few people with an agenda that is totally self serving, can control the lives and the future of our entire country?

Want to stop them - vote out as many Democrats as possible in November!

Source: Gary Jason, "Power Play" Liberty Magazine, April 2010.

Legislation introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) would permanently seal off a million acres of the Mojave Desert from solar plants and wind farms. Since Feinstein is chair of the Senate sub-committee that controls the Interior Department's budget, her wish will be its command, says Liberty Magazine.

For example: California is headed by an environmentalist governor who signed into law that by the year 2020, one third of the electricity produced in the state must be from "renewable sources," of which solar and wind power are the most often touted. The Mojave Desert is the best location in California for both solar plants and wind farms.

Plans were made for 13 large wind farms and solar plants, which would have gone a long way towards meeting the requirements of the law. Feinstein, an environmentalist, has blocked these plans, and this puts her in conflict with another environmentalist, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who grumbled, "This is arguably the best solar land in the world, and Sen. Feinstein shouldn't be allowed to take this land off the table without a proper and scientific environmental review."

It should be noted that Kennedy (like Al Gore) is heavily invested in "green" energy, says Liberty:

The venture capital firm of which Kennedy is a partner funded a company aiming to open a solar plant in the area. For years however, the Kennedy family have fought plans to build wind turbines off the coast of Cape Cod, since their family mansion is in the area.

Feinstein's concern is that these wind farms and solar plants will be large and ugly and spoil the view from the freeway that runs across the Mojave. This raises a key question: Why is the view from some freeway sacrosanct, whereas building such plants elsewhere in the state is OK? Of course, the ordinary nuclear plant the size of a football field can reliably supply the electricity that solar plants and wind farms covering many square miles do unreliably. However, Feinstein hates nuclear energy too, says Liberty.

All of this illustrates what is already clear: Environmentalists are simply not serious about energy production, says Liberty.

Friday, April 09, 2010

Foreign Policy Obama Style : Speak Softly - But No Big Stick!

The Obama ideology will have the tendency of all nations to see us as weak and no longer leader of the free world.

Populations yearning for freedom will see their dreams of coming to America to find freedom dashed. The true seekers of freedom around the world will see the United States as just another country ruled by a socialist tyrant. Why then, the masses of the world will say, leave the hell hole they live in now for just another hell hole.

With America slipping it's anchor and going adrift in the sea of an aimless future, lost freedoms, a gnashing of teeth and tears, we may look back on these days and say, 'why didn't we do more to stop this insanity that stole our country and enslaved us to a bleak existence of lowered expectations. Why did we say ' it can't happen here'.

But still, after all the hand wring and head banging is done, the question that is tearing us all to pieces, we look in the mirror with a blank stair and decry our present situration, how can this be happening, of all places on God's green earth, in America.

New York Post>

Updated: Wed., Apr. 7, 2010, 5:01 AM home

The bad-nukes myth

7, 2010 Nuclear weapons are /not/ evil. Terrifying, yes. But their horrific capabilities prevented a Third World War. It all depends on whose finger is on the button. Until yesterday's formal announcement of the administration's new Nuclear Posture Review, nukes also kept us safe from a range of threats short of a doomsday scenario: Our enemies risked going only so far. Nukes didn't prevent all wars -- but wars remained local.

Yesterday, we threw away a significant part of history's most successful deterrent. This looks like an act of reckless vanity on the part of the administration, but let's allow that this weakening of our national defense is the result of misguided idealism. The important thing isn't the politics, but the practical consequences.

Summarizing the changes in a Pentagon briefing yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates looked weary and chastened. The new posture emerged only after months of bitter argument between realists and activists. Without Gates, it would have been even worse. Still, it must be painful to Gates -- a great American -- to accept that this policy went into effect on his watch. Of all its malignant provisions, from accomodating Russian demands to preventing overdue updates for our arsenal, the most worrisome is the public declaration that, if the US suffers a biological, chemical or massive cyber attack, we will /not/ respond with nukes.

This is a very real -- and unilateral -- weakening of our national security. In the past, our ambiguity made our enemies hesitate. The new policy /guarantees/ that they'll intensify their pursuit of bugs, gas and weaponized computers.

Intending to halt a nuclear arms race, we've fired the starter pistol for a rush to develop alternative weapons of mass destruction. Will this policy be the inspiration for an engineered plague that someday scythes through humankind? Chemical attacks are horrible, but local;

cyber attacks are /potentially/ devastating. But an innovative virus unleashed on the world could do what Cold War nuclear arsenals never did: Kill hundreds of millions.This change leaves us far less safe. If a thug has a knife, but knows you're packing a gun, he's considerably less likely to attack you. Why promise him that you won't use the gun -- and might not use your knife?

Idealism has devolved into madness.

The left has never been willing to accept that deterrence works. In the left's world-view, hostile foreign actors aren't the problem. /We/ are. If we disarm, surely they will . . .This no-nukes obsession dates back to the early Cold War, when the Soviets used every available means, from dollars to earnest dupes, to persuade Western leftists that /America's/ nuclear weapons were about to wipe out humanity. The USSR couldn't expand its European empire in the face of US nukes -- so the Soviets brilliantly portrayed us as the aggressors. (And the left praised Stalin as a man of peace.)

Massive ban-the-bomb demonstrations filled Western streets for decades (but not the streets behind the Iron Curtain). The left rejected deterrence as a security model.

The seeds sown by the deceased USSR put down durable roots. Pursuing a nuke-free world became a litmus test for the left. Now we have a president who's taken on that goal as his personal grail. He's absolutely right that nukes have horrifying power -- but the paradox of deterrence is that, the more monstrous the weapons you possess, the less likely you are to ever need to employ them. The new policy won't stop Iran and other rogue states from pursuing nukes (even though Iran and North Korea were singled out as policy exceptions). But it /will/ accelerate the proliferation of other weapons of mass destruction. And it certainly won't reduce the probability of war.

It will also ensure that our aging arsenal will have to be content with a few Band-Aids; that we won't develop new, safer nuclear weapons -- and that we'll increasingly have to rely on the kindness of strangers.

Idealists just invited the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse to ride a little closer.

Ralph Peters' new book is "Endless War."//NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, , , and are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.Copyright 2010 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy

Thursday, April 08, 2010

California Lives the Lie of Climate Change

Is there no end to the nightmare that is Climate Change? How is it possible that so many supposedly smart people can be so clueless? In the face of all of the misinformation that has surfaced in the last year concerning Global Warming, and the fact that we have spent billions of tax dollars in pursuit of this lie, government officials continue to enact laws that support the lie.

Is it just for the money that they can extract for them selves, or is it just the ability to make others do their bidding?

Source: Cari Tuna, "Another California Dream," Wall Street Journal, April 5, 2010.

California has a new global warming law with no real name, just this: AB32. Last month, the California Air Resource Board (CARB) proclaimed in a report that AB32 would grow 10,000 jobs. That is true only if you also repeal basic market economics and the state's current business indicators, says the Wall Street Journal.

AB32 creates a statewide cap and trade program and imposes numerous command-and-control mandates that CARB calls "complementary measures" on businesses, such as low-carbon fuel standards and a goal of achieving 33 percent energy from renewable sources by 2020.
Forcing businesses to comply with the complementary measures will make businesses more energy efficient, and this in turn will save businesses money on emissions allowances under cap and trade.

Companies say compliance costs will force them to cut jobs and raise prices.

But if these technologies were really going to save businesses money, why would they be so reluctant to adopt them? The Economic Impacts Subcommittee of the Economic and Allocation Advisory Committee concludes, "Many of the technologies that would be adopted under AB32 are either yet to be developed or currently prohibitively expensive."

So how does CARB manage to make cost predictions about technologies that do not even exist? With a lot of uncertainty, says the Journal:
Most uncertain of all is the projected 10,000 new green jobs, which presumably will be spurred by increased demand for renewable energy and green technology.

While CARB indicates the state will lose jobs in mining, utilities, construction, manufacturing, trade and transportation due to cost increases, it underestimates these job losses by failing to take into account businesses leaving for other states or countries.
The Economics Impact Subcommittee notes these job losses are more than likely to eclipse the paltry 10,000 new green jobs the report forecasts.

While almost all of AB32's benefits are speculative and uncertain, its costs are hitting businesses and residents now. This is one more blow to jobs and growth that California does not need, says the Wall Street Journal.

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Oil Price Rise AND Fall Linked to Stock Market NOT Demand

I just read a great article from a financial publication on why the price of oil is so volatile. The reason, according to this author, is investors are looking at oil as an investment tool, a hedge against other market situations, that will pad their portfolios against market fluctuations.

The problem here is that now, rather than seeing oil as a commodity, it is now a stock that will rise or fall according to investors thoughts and whims about the direction of the market it self. The supply or demand will have nothing to do with how the price rises or falls.

Interesting observation don't ya think? hmmmm

Tuesday, April 06, 2010

Teachers Union Demand No Layoffs

Is this something that we didn't already know? Maybe more money will help?

Source: Dr. Matthew Ladner, "Teachers union pushes for larger class sizes taught by bad teachers," Goldwater Institute, April 1, 2010.

During a special session last year, the Arizona Legislature passed a budget provision which said in the event of layoffs, school districts could not use years of service as the only factor for determining which teachers to let go. The Arizona Education Association -- the teachers union -- is trying to overturn the measure by filing a lawsuit on technical grounds. The union also is opposing a similar measure before the Legislature this year, says Dr. Matthew Ladner, vice president of research for the Goldwater Institute.

A recent Brookings Institution study reveals just how damaging the effort to protect veteran teachers could ultimately prove to Arizona students. The study tracked the value-added gains of students, after statistically controlling for a variety of factors. The bottom line finding was that some teachers are great at adding value, and some are abysmal, dragging down their students' learning.

If Arizona schools have to follow an outdated rule that says no one who has been teaching at a school for more than three years can be laid off, then schools are forced to let the new teachers go -- even if they are highly effective teachers. If you shield veteran teachers from layoffs, you shield even those who should not be in the classroom, says Ladner:

Such a practice is certain to lead to larger class sizes; it is also certain to put more students in the classrooms of ineffective teachers.

Larger class sizes are unpopular but academically harmless, all else being equal. Systematically protecting ineffective teachers based on seniority and giving them more students, however, will be catastrophic in terms of how much those students learn.

There is more than one way to address this problem, says Ladner:

The Legislature could, for instance, re-enact the budget provision but spell out that neither years on the job nor current salaries shall be the sole determining factor in deciding who gets laid off.

The school districts should focus on measurable factors of how teachers are doing their jobs, and get rid of the bad ones first.

Deforestation Worse Than Thought : Long Lines Result

I never thought it would come to this. I am shocked and dismayed. I knew we had some problems in urban areas with tree lose, but never in my wildest dreams would I have believed such consequences.

Sunday, April 04, 2010

Swine Flu Crisis : Never Happened - Vaccines Wasted

Rom Emanuel - "A crisis is too good to be wasted" - This Pig Flu scare was manufactured by the Obama administration just to get the people waiting in line for government help, and it worked. Oh yeah, they waited but the "peoples" government failed in a time of crisis. But where's the outrage by the media?

Every wonder why we can't have a system that handles real epidemics in this country? There use to be a viable industry that made vaccines but under 'government assault' they all disappeared except for a few. Why those few industries still exist in our socialist economy is a good question.

What is really scary is that some of the laboratories that produce vaccines for the United States are located over seas their technology is outdated. Cool!! How does that make you feel? Hooray for big brother government.

Source: Rob Stein, "Millions of H1N1 vaccine doses may have to be discarded," Washington Post, April 1, 2010.

Despite months of dire warnings and millions in taxpayer dollars, less than half of the 229 million doses of H1N1 vaccine the government bought to fight the pandemic have been administered -- leaving an estimated 71.5 million doses that must be discarded if they are not used before they expire. These doses have already been placed in syringes or vials for use, which "starts the clock ticking on an expiration date, says the Washington Post.

Between 81 million and 91 million doses of swine flu vaccine were injected into peoples' arms or squirted up their noses through the end of February, according to federal officials, leaving about 138 million doses unused. An estimated 60 million of those will be donated to poor countries or saved for possible future use, but doses already in vials and syringes will be thrown away if not used before their expiration dates pass.

The prospect of millions of doses of the once-precious vaccine being discarded is the latest twist in the $1.6 billion program -- the most ambitious immunization campaign in U.S. history. The government-led effort produced a vaccine in record time, but unexpected production problems delayed delivery of the bulk of supplies until after the second wave of infections had peaked, leaving millions anxious and frustrated as they scrambled for the shots and nasal sprays.

Nevertheless, officials said they were largely satisfied with the effort, which blunted the impact of the first flu pandemic in decades. Between 72 million and 81 million U.S. residents are estimated to have been immunized, including nearly 37 percent of children ages six months to 17 years.

The immunization program was designed to provide enough vaccine to protect every U.S. resident if needed. But antiquated technology dependent on growing the virus in chicken eggs delayed arrival of most of the doses. Fears about the pandemic fostered wide-scale anxiety and spawned long lines as the first doses trickled in amid the second wave of infections last fall. By the time the vaccine was plentiful, demand had dissipated, says the Post.

Saturday, April 03, 2010

Climate Change Lies Cost Tax Payers Billions

As we all knew this would be the case when our Representatives in Washington took up the call for more wind and solar power subsidies. You just had to knew it was just another way to waste money and that others would get rich at the public expense.

Again, all this comes back to climate gate Al Gore and the United Nations IPCC reports. You know Gore lied from the very beginning, and anything that comes from the UN has to be a lie. Now with all of these reports that were leaked on how the information was manipulated and out right falsified to get the results they wanted to further their personal agendas, we all are going to pay Gore and others for lying to us? Are we crazy?

And just think how much we have already paid in tax dollars for this research! Billions!! Do you feel like getting screwed some more by paying for more bogus research? Wake up people - these guys are crooks - they are stealing from us and we don't seem to care.

Source: Ronald Bailey, "Overpaying for Green Power," Reason Magazine, May 2010.

Green power advocates in the United States are pushing for a European-style subsidy scheme in which homeowners or businesses that install solar panels or windmills can sell their excess power back to the grid at inflated prices. Utilities in Europe are required by the state to pay above-market rates for this environmentally friendly power, says Reason Magazine.

These so-called feed-in tariffs were first devised in Germany in the early 1990s and have been adopted by nearly 20 other countries as a way to boost renewable energy production. As the result of its feed-in tariff scheme, Germany has the world's second-largest installed wind capacity--behind the United States--and the largest installed solar photovoltaic capacity in the world.

However, a recent report by the independent German economics think tank, RWI, found:

The solar electricity feed-in tariff of 59 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2009 is more than eight times higher than the wholesale electricity price and more than four times the feed-in tariff paid for electricity produced by on-shore wind turbines.

The report noted, "Installed capacity is not the same as production or contribution." In 2008, 6.3 percent of Germany's electricity production was from wind, followed by 3.6 percent from biomass and 3.1 percent from water.

Meanwhile, the report notes, "The amount of electricity produced through solar energy was a negligible 0.6 percent despite being the most subsidized renewable energy, with a net cost of about €8.4 billion (US $12.4 billion) for 2008."

German consumers foot that bill:

In 2008, the price mark-up due to green energy subsidies amounted to 7.5 percent of average household electricity prices. Keep in mind that German residential electricity prices are already high at about 30 cents per kilowatt-hour.
The average American pays about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Several European countries have decided to cut back on feed-in tariffs, says Reason. The irony is that American states and municipalities appear to be adopting this failed renewable energy strategy just as the Europeans who invented it are scaling it back, says Reason.

Friday, April 02, 2010

ObamaCare Taxes WILL Crush the American Dream

The Progressive socialist Democrats believe taking from the rich will pay for all of their insanity has a history of not working. In reality, it will only make things worse. And with the debt that we have already, the future spending will certainly bring down our country.

It appears the socialists don't care. Ideology is more important than country.

Source: Alan Reynolds, "The Rich Can't Pay for ObamaCare," Wall Street Journal, March 30, 2010.

President Barack Obama's new health care legislation aims to raise $20 billion over 10 years to pay for the extensive new entitlements. How? By slapping a 3.8 percent "Medicare tax" on interest and rental income, dividends and capital gains of couples earning more than $250,000, or singles with more than $200,000, along with raising the top two individual income tax rates and other measures.

But it won't work, says Alan Reynolds, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute:

The maximum tax rate fell to 28 percent in 1988-1990 from 50 percent in 1986, yet individual income tax receipts rose to 8.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1989 from 7.9 percent in 1986.

The top tax rate rose to 31 percent in 1991 and revenue fell to 7.6 percent of GDP in 1992.

The top tax rate was increased to 39.6 percent in 1993, along with numerous other major revenue enhancers, yet individual tax revenues were only 7.8 percent of GDP in 1993, 8.1 percent in 1994 and did not get back to the 1989 level until 1995.

According to Reynolds, a few of the ways that taxpayers will react to the Obama administration's tax plans include:

Professionals and companies who currently file under the individual income tax as partnerships, LLCs or Subchapter S corporations will form C-corporations to shelter income.

Investors who jumped into dividend-paying stocks after 2003 when the tax rate fell to 15 percent will dump many of those shares in favor of tax-free municipal bonds if the dividend tax goes up to 23.8 percent as planned.

Faced with a 23.8 percent capital gains tax, high-income investors will avoid realizing gains in taxable accounts unless they have offsetting losses.

In short, when marginal tax rates go up, the amount of reported income goes down. The belief that higher tax rates on the rich could eventually raise significant sums over the next decade is a dangerous delusion, because it means the already horrific estimates of long-term deficits are seriously understated, says Reynolds.

Thursday, April 01, 2010

McChrystal Hates Waiting In Line for Anything

I'm not sure this is on the level but nonetheless it does point up the problems that the military has with a socialist president.

quote of 2009....

The General is a quick thinker..
President Obama was having that one, lone brief conversation this year with General McChrystal about Afghanistan .
Things were obviously not going the way the General had hoped.
Obama could sense this, and told him,
"I bet when I die, you'll piss on my grave."
To which General McChrystal answers,
"No sir, I've always said that when I get out of the Army, I'll never again wait in another line."