Are we seeing common sense prevailing in the EU? How is it possible that the people in charge of energy for the EU now what to increase the reduction of carbon by another 10% given the revaluations from the "climate change" community? With nearly all of the information that has been produced by these people as false, why do the environmental nut jobs still believe?
Where is the reality among these people? Is it true that their DNA is different from normal people? You decide!
EUROPE SLASHES LOW-CARBON ENERGY SUBSIDIES AS BUDGETS SHRINK
Source: Jeremy Lovell, "Europe slashes low-carbon energy subsidies as budgets shrink," New York Times, July 29, 2010.
Spain, Germany, France, Italy and the Czech Republic have all announced low-carbon energy subsidy cuts, and there are fears that the United Kingdom, making budget cuts across the board as it desperately seeks to reduce a deficit of over £160 billion (about US$209 billion), will be tempted to go even further, says the New York Times.
The United Kingdom's independent Committee on Climate Change called earlier this week for the government to safeguard the £550 million (about $719 million) a year it spends supporting clean energy, which it said was a paltry amount that needed, if anything, to be increased when economic circumstances allow. Yet cuts have already been announced, says the Times:
The European Union is committed to getting 20 percent of its final energy consumption from renewables like wind, wave, tidal and solar by 2020, and cutting carbon emissions by 20 percent by the same deadline -- targets that many businesses and certain governments find daunting.
The task is made no easier by prospects, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), that economic growth in Europe will remain weak for several years with low spending power, worsening welfare and rising unemployment.
Earlier this month, the climate, energy and environment ministers of France, the United Kingdom and Germany called on the 27-nation European Union to move unilaterally to 30 percent emission reductions. But environmental campaigners still fear that the cuts, and the potential signal that they give, could be the start of far harsher measures to come -- especially if European economies only manage to dawdle out of recession.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
National Health Care Flooding Emergency Rooms
The typical response to this information is " I didn't see this coming". Of course, everyone was warned over and over again that this would be the result of giving the impression that health care was free for the taking. Free for everyone including illegals. Someone else will pick up the tab.
Not to worry was the cover story by the liberal members of congress and the brain dead media, 'we will tax the rich to cover the cost'. And the people cheered, Hooray! All is well in America.
EMERGENCY ROOM WAITS DRAG AS PATIENT NUMBERS RISE
Source: Aly Van Dyke, "Emergency room waits drag as patient numbers rise," Kansas City Business Journal, July 28, 2010.
Emergency room patients in Kansas had to wait an average of five hours and 43 minutes until they were seen by a physician, according to the most recent annual report from Press Ganey Associates Inc., a consulting firm that offers services and research to health care providers. That's 21 minutes longer than last year and almost two hours longer than across the state line in Missouri. The wait makes Kansas the second-worst in the nation, ahead of Utah's average wait time of eight hours and 17 minutes.
Other findings:
Missouri ranked 21st on Press Ganey's list, with an average wait of three hours and 56 minutes.
Nationwide, the average wait time was four hours and seven minutes in 2009, up four minutes from 2008. Kansas's wait time increased by 21 minutes, and Missouri's by three minutes.
Fewer U.S. hospitals have emergency rooms, and those ERs are treating more patients, says the Kansas City Business Journal:
The number of ER visits increased from 90 million in 1990 to 123 million in 2008, according to the American Health Association and the National Center for Health Statistics. The same organizations found that the number of hospitals with emergency rooms decreased from 5,000 in 1991 to 4,000 in 2006.
At the University of Kansas Hospital, ER visits increased by almost 3,000 from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2010.
Truman Medical Centers saw 64,171 ER visits during the year ended June 30 -- 5 percent more than during the previous fiscal year. Yet TMC cut its waiting time by 44 minutes; the current average wait time is 84 minutes, down from 128 minutes last year.
Federal health reform aims to decrease emergency room visits by providing incentives and coverage for preventive care -- the idea being to get people to seek medical attention before a health problem becomes a medical emergency. But some say it will have the opposite effect.
The National Center for Policy Analysis estimated that insuring between 32 million and 34 million more people -- half of whom will be covered through Medicaid, which represents the largest percentage of emergency room visits -- will add between 848,000 and 901,000 emergency room visits a year.
Not to worry was the cover story by the liberal members of congress and the brain dead media, 'we will tax the rich to cover the cost'. And the people cheered, Hooray! All is well in America.
EMERGENCY ROOM WAITS DRAG AS PATIENT NUMBERS RISE
Source: Aly Van Dyke, "Emergency room waits drag as patient numbers rise," Kansas City Business Journal, July 28, 2010.
Emergency room patients in Kansas had to wait an average of five hours and 43 minutes until they were seen by a physician, according to the most recent annual report from Press Ganey Associates Inc., a consulting firm that offers services and research to health care providers. That's 21 minutes longer than last year and almost two hours longer than across the state line in Missouri. The wait makes Kansas the second-worst in the nation, ahead of Utah's average wait time of eight hours and 17 minutes.
Other findings:
Missouri ranked 21st on Press Ganey's list, with an average wait of three hours and 56 minutes.
Nationwide, the average wait time was four hours and seven minutes in 2009, up four minutes from 2008. Kansas's wait time increased by 21 minutes, and Missouri's by three minutes.
Fewer U.S. hospitals have emergency rooms, and those ERs are treating more patients, says the Kansas City Business Journal:
The number of ER visits increased from 90 million in 1990 to 123 million in 2008, according to the American Health Association and the National Center for Health Statistics. The same organizations found that the number of hospitals with emergency rooms decreased from 5,000 in 1991 to 4,000 in 2006.
At the University of Kansas Hospital, ER visits increased by almost 3,000 from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2010.
Truman Medical Centers saw 64,171 ER visits during the year ended June 30 -- 5 percent more than during the previous fiscal year. Yet TMC cut its waiting time by 44 minutes; the current average wait time is 84 minutes, down from 128 minutes last year.
Federal health reform aims to decrease emergency room visits by providing incentives and coverage for preventive care -- the idea being to get people to seek medical attention before a health problem becomes a medical emergency. But some say it will have the opposite effect.
The National Center for Policy Analysis estimated that insuring between 32 million and 34 million more people -- half of whom will be covered through Medicaid, which represents the largest percentage of emergency room visits -- will add between 848,000 and 901,000 emergency room visits a year.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Congress Needs Complete Overhaul
This is something that I can vote for and I believe must be done to correct the abuses that our government employees commit on the rest of us for years without any recourse. Too many of the voters don't pay enough attention to how inefficient or incompetent their Representatives are.
Author unknown - -
THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!!
Platform for the 2010 Election
My friend and neighbor wants to promote a "Congressional Reform Act of 2010". It would contain eight provisions, all of which would probably be strongly endorsed by those who drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I know many of you will say, "this is impossible". Let me remind you, Congress has the lowest approval of any entity in Government, now is the time when Americans will join together to reform Congress - the entity that represents us. We need to get a Senator to introduce this bill in the US Senate and a Representative to introduce a similar bill in the US House. These people will become American heroes
Thanks,A Fellow American ***********************************
Congressional Reform Act of 20101. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.A. Two Six year Senate terms B. Six Two year House terms C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
2. No Tenure / No Pension: A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security: All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go home and back to work.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work. Or go to jail, if appropriate.
8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/11. The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
Author unknown - -
THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!!
Platform for the 2010 Election
My friend and neighbor wants to promote a "Congressional Reform Act of 2010". It would contain eight provisions, all of which would probably be strongly endorsed by those who drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I know many of you will say, "this is impossible". Let me remind you, Congress has the lowest approval of any entity in Government, now is the time when Americans will join together to reform Congress - the entity that represents us. We need to get a Senator to introduce this bill in the US Senate and a Representative to introduce a similar bill in the US House. These people will become American heroes
Thanks,A Fellow American ***********************************
Congressional Reform Act of 20101. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.A. Two Six year Senate terms B. Six Two year House terms C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
2. No Tenure / No Pension: A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security: All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go home and back to work.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work. Or go to jail, if appropriate.
8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/11. The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Cap and Trade Exposed : Agenda Flawed
What a great article from The American Thinker on what a fraud Cap and Trade (Tax) really is. It's a little long but cuts to the center of the debate and exposes the flaws of the program.
**********************************************************************************
Cap and trade died even before Congress shelved legislation...for now. News of the death of cap and trade last month didn't appear in the obituary section of daily newspapers. Instead, it appeared on page C1 of the July 12 edition of The Wall Street Journal in an article titled
"Changes Choke Cap-and-Trade Market."
The Journal reported that the cap-and-trade market for sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions in the United States, created in 1995 in response to what was thought to be the connection between SO2 emissions and acid rain, had "collapsed" in spectacular fashion.
Changes in EPA guidelines -- caused by court rulings -- rendered current SO2 emission allowances useless. Allowances that once traded for as much as $1,600 per ton were trading at less than $3, and traders predicted that they would go to zero shortly.
Spokespersons for environmental advocacy groups pushing for a cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide (CO2) claim that the failure holds no lessons for their proposal, but they could hardly be more wrong. The SO2 market arose from concerns remarkably similar to those behind the push for CO2 markets, and the mistakes leading to the collapse of the existing market portend disaster for the one on the drawing board.
The market for SO2 emission allowances was created to address widespread concern that SO2 emissions from power plants were causing acid rain, which in turn was acidifying lakes and damaging forests. That connection, though heavily hyped by environmental groups and the media and still regarded as an article of faith in both circles, was never scientifically proven. Shortly before the cap-and-trade legislation was enacted, a massive research project called the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program found that most of the damages attributed to acid rain were in fact due to logging and natural processes. But it was too late: Congress didn't want to be confused by the facts.
The parallel to global warming couldn't be clearer. Congress is taking up cap-and-trade legislation for CO2 emissions even as the scientific community backs away from the sensational claims by Al Gore, James Hansen, and the like. Even one-time leaders of the alarmist side of the global warming debate, such as Phil Jones, now admit that the warming of the 20th century was not unusual or evidence of a human impact on climate. Estimates of the effects of "man-made global warming" on sea levels, wildlife, and weather have all been called into question or scaled back dramatically in recent years.
The SO2 trading program had a fatal flaw that only a few astute observers (such as economist Jim Johnston, at the time working for Amoco and now retired) commented on at the time: It did not give emission allowance the legal status of private property. This meant the government could change the rules of the game without fear of being sued by businesses and investors whose allowances became worthless. Predictably, government officials couldn't keep their hands off the program, and their meddling with the rules since 2005 destroyed the system.
Johnston further predicted that the failure to give property rights status to emission allowances would discourage businesses from buying the allowances, causing the market to be too thin to have much effect on emissions. He was right again: The volume of trading never approached that of successful "real" markets. This remains a strange blind spot for many reporters: An illustration in the July 12 Wall Street Journal article, for example, shows the collapse in SO2 prices and refers to "the once-robust market in sulfur-dioxide allowances." But high prices don't reveal whether a market is "robust." Volume does.
If the SO2 trading program wasn't responsible for making major reductions in emissions affordable, what was? An obvious candidate is the coming-to-market of low-sulfur coal from new mines in Western states, the legacy of environmental policies crafted and huge investments made during the Carter administration.
Could substituting low-sulfur coal from the West for high-sulfur coal from the East and Midwest all by itself account for the lower-than-expected cost of reducing emissions? Jim Johnston, in his retirement, took up the challenge of proving this point in a clever way: by demonstrating that changes in the price of SO2 allowances prior to 2005 closely tracked the price of natural gas.
During periods of peak demand and output, many utilities face the choice of increasing generation from their coal-powered plants, thereby increasing emissions and necessitating the purchase of additional emissions allowances, or buying power from other utilities that generally use natural gas for deliver peak-load capacity. Natural gas futures and options are therefore a substitute for emission allowances, and the prices of the former will dictate the price of the latter.
If most emissions allowances were being traded to reward firms with the lowest cost of reducing emissions, the correlation between allowance and natural gas prices would be weak or nonexistent. Johnston's data showed that traffic on the market was occurring for an entirely unrelated reason: to allow utilities to hedge against volatile natural gas prices.
Once again, the relevance for plans for CO2 trading is obvious. The SO2 market was not "highly successful" or "robust," as is so often reported. In fact, it was too thin to have had anything to do with the cost of reducing emissions. This means a CO2 market without property rights cannot be counted on to reduce the cost of lowering CO2 emissions, either.
The latest proposals for CO2 trading deny property rights status to the emission allowances. Does anyone believe politicians will keep their hands of a CO2 cap-and-trade system and allow the market to work? Do you want to buy a bridge in Phoenix?
The death of SO2 cap-and-trade in July 2010 should be duly noted by every thoughtful observer. It should signal the defeat of any proposals for CO2 emissions trading. If a CO2 cap-and-trade program were ever enacted in the U.S., its collapse would be spectacular indeed compared to the one that will have foreshadowed it.
**********************************************************************************
Cap and trade died even before Congress shelved legislation...for now. News of the death of cap and trade last month didn't appear in the obituary section of daily newspapers. Instead, it appeared on page C1 of the July 12 edition of The Wall Street Journal in an article titled
"Changes Choke Cap-and-Trade Market."
The Journal reported that the cap-and-trade market for sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions in the United States, created in 1995 in response to what was thought to be the connection between SO2 emissions and acid rain, had "collapsed" in spectacular fashion.
Changes in EPA guidelines -- caused by court rulings -- rendered current SO2 emission allowances useless. Allowances that once traded for as much as $1,600 per ton were trading at less than $3, and traders predicted that they would go to zero shortly.
Spokespersons for environmental advocacy groups pushing for a cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide (CO2) claim that the failure holds no lessons for their proposal, but they could hardly be more wrong. The SO2 market arose from concerns remarkably similar to those behind the push for CO2 markets, and the mistakes leading to the collapse of the existing market portend disaster for the one on the drawing board.
The market for SO2 emission allowances was created to address widespread concern that SO2 emissions from power plants were causing acid rain, which in turn was acidifying lakes and damaging forests. That connection, though heavily hyped by environmental groups and the media and still regarded as an article of faith in both circles, was never scientifically proven. Shortly before the cap-and-trade legislation was enacted, a massive research project called the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program found that most of the damages attributed to acid rain were in fact due to logging and natural processes. But it was too late: Congress didn't want to be confused by the facts.
The parallel to global warming couldn't be clearer. Congress is taking up cap-and-trade legislation for CO2 emissions even as the scientific community backs away from the sensational claims by Al Gore, James Hansen, and the like. Even one-time leaders of the alarmist side of the global warming debate, such as Phil Jones, now admit that the warming of the 20th century was not unusual or evidence of a human impact on climate. Estimates of the effects of "man-made global warming" on sea levels, wildlife, and weather have all been called into question or scaled back dramatically in recent years.
The SO2 trading program had a fatal flaw that only a few astute observers (such as economist Jim Johnston, at the time working for Amoco and now retired) commented on at the time: It did not give emission allowance the legal status of private property. This meant the government could change the rules of the game without fear of being sued by businesses and investors whose allowances became worthless. Predictably, government officials couldn't keep their hands off the program, and their meddling with the rules since 2005 destroyed the system.
Johnston further predicted that the failure to give property rights status to emission allowances would discourage businesses from buying the allowances, causing the market to be too thin to have much effect on emissions. He was right again: The volume of trading never approached that of successful "real" markets. This remains a strange blind spot for many reporters: An illustration in the July 12 Wall Street Journal article, for example, shows the collapse in SO2 prices and refers to "the once-robust market in sulfur-dioxide allowances." But high prices don't reveal whether a market is "robust." Volume does.
If the SO2 trading program wasn't responsible for making major reductions in emissions affordable, what was? An obvious candidate is the coming-to-market of low-sulfur coal from new mines in Western states, the legacy of environmental policies crafted and huge investments made during the Carter administration.
Could substituting low-sulfur coal from the West for high-sulfur coal from the East and Midwest all by itself account for the lower-than-expected cost of reducing emissions? Jim Johnston, in his retirement, took up the challenge of proving this point in a clever way: by demonstrating that changes in the price of SO2 allowances prior to 2005 closely tracked the price of natural gas.
During periods of peak demand and output, many utilities face the choice of increasing generation from their coal-powered plants, thereby increasing emissions and necessitating the purchase of additional emissions allowances, or buying power from other utilities that generally use natural gas for deliver peak-load capacity. Natural gas futures and options are therefore a substitute for emission allowances, and the prices of the former will dictate the price of the latter.
If most emissions allowances were being traded to reward firms with the lowest cost of reducing emissions, the correlation between allowance and natural gas prices would be weak or nonexistent. Johnston's data showed that traffic on the market was occurring for an entirely unrelated reason: to allow utilities to hedge against volatile natural gas prices.
Once again, the relevance for plans for CO2 trading is obvious. The SO2 market was not "highly successful" or "robust," as is so often reported. In fact, it was too thin to have had anything to do with the cost of reducing emissions. This means a CO2 market without property rights cannot be counted on to reduce the cost of lowering CO2 emissions, either.
The latest proposals for CO2 trading deny property rights status to the emission allowances. Does anyone believe politicians will keep their hands of a CO2 cap-and-trade system and allow the market to work? Do you want to buy a bridge in Phoenix?
The death of SO2 cap-and-trade in July 2010 should be duly noted by every thoughtful observer. It should signal the defeat of any proposals for CO2 emissions trading. If a CO2 cap-and-trade program were ever enacted in the U.S., its collapse would be spectacular indeed compared to the one that will have foreshadowed it.
Islam On The Move In Britian? Picture The Future?
The problem that we have these days is can we believe what we see to be real or managed. Also it makes it difficult to make decisions to separate truth from fiction in fact finding. Is this on purpose to hide the truth with confusing reports, managed pictures and misinformation?
Okay now, are these pictures real and if they are, are we are seeing the future? Are we to believe this to be the real heart of Islam or is this just a few wild radicals trying to make trouble. You decide.
image002.jpg, image003.jpg, image004.jpg, image005.jpg, image006.jpg, image007.jpg, image008.jpg, image009.jpg, image010.jpg
Okay now, are these pictures real and if they are, are we are seeing the future? Are we to believe this to be the real heart of Islam or is this just a few wild radicals trying to make trouble. You decide.
image002.jpg, image003.jpg, image004.jpg, image005.jpg, image006.jpg, image007.jpg, image008.jpg, image009.jpg, image010.jpg
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Obamaland Gang Wars Worse Than Iraq
Want to see what Obamaland is like up close - watch this video. This is what he has in store for all of us. Chaos!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOuHEnijrdc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOuHEnijrdc&feature=related
Marginal Tax for Business Near 50% : Death Tax IS More Tax
We can not tax our way to recovery - a proven fact given our history from the early twentieth century. Roosevelt did this and it failed. Why should we do it again and watch our economy fail again.
Why not learn from our mistakes? Is it possible that our president whats us to fail?
THE ECONOMIC CASE AGAINST THE DEATH TAX: STIFLING ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Source: Curtis Dubay, "The Economic Case Against the Death Tax: Stifling Entrepreneurship," Heritage Foundation, July 20, 2010.
Due to a legal quirk, the death tax is scheduled to come back to life in 2011. The renewed death tax would once again inflict serious harm on family businesses, workers and the economy. Congress should act before the end of the year to repeal this economically harmful tax permanently, says Curtis S. Dubay, a senior analyst in tax policy at the Heritage Foundation.
The death tax stands in the way of entrepreneurs, says Dubay:
When a person weighs the risk of a new business venture, he takes into account all the costs he will face in order to determine the final return he will earn. The death tax raises the costs an entrepreneur will pay because it promises to confiscate a portion of his business upon his death.
The prospect of their children or other family members being forced to pay a hefty tax in order to keep the business they have rightly inherited causes many entrepreneurs to refrain from starting a business. That means fewer jobs are created and economic growth is slower than it would have been in the absence of the death tax.
Successful entrepreneurs who create the most jobs pay high marginal income tax rates throughout their working years. When the top federal income tax rate is combined with the average federal rate and federal payroll taxes, those who take the risk to start a business often pay marginal tax rates of close to 50 percent. The death tax is yet another tax an entrepreneur must pay if he uses the disposable income leftover after paying taxes to grow the business and increase its value, says Dubay.
Why not learn from our mistakes? Is it possible that our president whats us to fail?
THE ECONOMIC CASE AGAINST THE DEATH TAX: STIFLING ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Source: Curtis Dubay, "The Economic Case Against the Death Tax: Stifling Entrepreneurship," Heritage Foundation, July 20, 2010.
Due to a legal quirk, the death tax is scheduled to come back to life in 2011. The renewed death tax would once again inflict serious harm on family businesses, workers and the economy. Congress should act before the end of the year to repeal this economically harmful tax permanently, says Curtis S. Dubay, a senior analyst in tax policy at the Heritage Foundation.
The death tax stands in the way of entrepreneurs, says Dubay:
When a person weighs the risk of a new business venture, he takes into account all the costs he will face in order to determine the final return he will earn. The death tax raises the costs an entrepreneur will pay because it promises to confiscate a portion of his business upon his death.
The prospect of their children or other family members being forced to pay a hefty tax in order to keep the business they have rightly inherited causes many entrepreneurs to refrain from starting a business. That means fewer jobs are created and economic growth is slower than it would have been in the absence of the death tax.
Successful entrepreneurs who create the most jobs pay high marginal income tax rates throughout their working years. When the top federal income tax rate is combined with the average federal rate and federal payroll taxes, those who take the risk to start a business often pay marginal tax rates of close to 50 percent. The death tax is yet another tax an entrepreneur must pay if he uses the disposable income leftover after paying taxes to grow the business and increase its value, says Dubay.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Mexico's Juarez Murders 1300 : El Paso 1
How can this be? I thought the President of Mexico was outraged at our problems on the boarder? Maybe he should worry more about his own country dissolving into total ruin.
Oh wait, what this about is making sure the boarder stays open so Mexican problems can go north, and Obama can make sure he has all of the illegal votes going his way in November and beyond.
THE WAR NEXT DOOR
Source: Duncan Currie, ''The war next door,'' National Review, July 9, 2010.
From his office window, El Paso mayor John Cook enjoys a clear view across the U.S.-Mexico border into Ciudad Juárez, birthplace of the famous maquiladora factories, where thousands of Mexicans are employed assembling products for export to the United States. Only the Rio Grande separates the most dangerous city in Mexico (and perhaps the world) from one of the least dangerous cities in the United States, says National Review.
In the first six months of 2010, Juárez experienced more than 1,300 homicides.
Over that same period, El Paso experienced one, a murder-suicide.
According to the latest CQ Press rankings of America's safest cities with more than 500,000 people, El Paso is second only to Honolulu. Those rankings reflect 2008 crime data: Between 2008 and 2009 -- when the violence in Juárez absolutely exploded -- the annual number of murders in El Paso dropped by 28 percent, falling from 18 to 13.
El Paso police spokesman Darrel Petry reports that, through June 15, robberies were down by 5 percent, burglaries were down by 13 percent, and car thefts were down by 18 percent from their 2009 levels.
The fact that El Paso suffered only one murder in the first half of 2010 is nothing short of astounding, says National Review. So how did El Paso achieve such impressive security gains, and how has it managed to preserve them amid the drug-fueled carnage next door?
Cook credits ''neighborhood policing,'' the crime-fighting strategy that El Paso adopted under Chief Scagno, the city's top cop from 1987 to 1995.
It entailed launching interactive partnerships between officers and residents, with a localized approach. One of the main goals, says Scagno, was to effect an ''attitude change'' among both the police and the citizenry. ''The more the citizens worked with us, the more we were able to get prosecutions.'' In a largely Hispanic city, he adds, police had to convince illegal immigrants that reporting a crime would not result in automatic deportation. Fostering trust was essential.
Scagno also created special units to tackle gang violence and car thefts, each of which delivered positive results. Since Cook became mayor in 2005, El Paso has made a serious push to increase and enhance its neighborhood associations, thereby strengthening its community-policing efforts.
Oh wait, what this about is making sure the boarder stays open so Mexican problems can go north, and Obama can make sure he has all of the illegal votes going his way in November and beyond.
THE WAR NEXT DOOR
Source: Duncan Currie, ''The war next door,'' National Review, July 9, 2010.
From his office window, El Paso mayor John Cook enjoys a clear view across the U.S.-Mexico border into Ciudad Juárez, birthplace of the famous maquiladora factories, where thousands of Mexicans are employed assembling products for export to the United States. Only the Rio Grande separates the most dangerous city in Mexico (and perhaps the world) from one of the least dangerous cities in the United States, says National Review.
In the first six months of 2010, Juárez experienced more than 1,300 homicides.
Over that same period, El Paso experienced one, a murder-suicide.
According to the latest CQ Press rankings of America's safest cities with more than 500,000 people, El Paso is second only to Honolulu. Those rankings reflect 2008 crime data: Between 2008 and 2009 -- when the violence in Juárez absolutely exploded -- the annual number of murders in El Paso dropped by 28 percent, falling from 18 to 13.
El Paso police spokesman Darrel Petry reports that, through June 15, robberies were down by 5 percent, burglaries were down by 13 percent, and car thefts were down by 18 percent from their 2009 levels.
The fact that El Paso suffered only one murder in the first half of 2010 is nothing short of astounding, says National Review. So how did El Paso achieve such impressive security gains, and how has it managed to preserve them amid the drug-fueled carnage next door?
Cook credits ''neighborhood policing,'' the crime-fighting strategy that El Paso adopted under Chief Scagno, the city's top cop from 1987 to 1995.
It entailed launching interactive partnerships between officers and residents, with a localized approach. One of the main goals, says Scagno, was to effect an ''attitude change'' among both the police and the citizenry. ''The more the citizens worked with us, the more we were able to get prosecutions.'' In a largely Hispanic city, he adds, police had to convince illegal immigrants that reporting a crime would not result in automatic deportation. Fostering trust was essential.
Scagno also created special units to tackle gang violence and car thefts, each of which delivered positive results. Since Cook became mayor in 2005, El Paso has made a serious push to increase and enhance its neighborhood associations, thereby strengthening its community-policing efforts.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Diversity Unequally Applied Resulting In Discrimination
Unequally applied diversity in America has lead to discrimination against a majority of the population. As the author points out in this insightful article the majority is white and has been marginalized as a consequence.
The situation that is on going as we speak concerning the NAACP and the Tea Party is just more of the same. The NAACP believes it is losing control of the narrative, black people are in need of more assistance to gain political clout in Washington to 'level the playing field', in the country to the Tea Party participants and as a result attacks them with the best weapon at the disposal, racism.
That there is no evidence of such occurring in the Tea Party, at least no one in the main stream media has shown any on TV or pictures in the newspapers of actual evidence of this, and rest assured they would do so if they could find it, so using racism as a club they hope to bring back the focus where it belongs, the black community and it's problems.
Diversity, as structured in today's laws, serves to actually make the playing field more uneven. Many that need the help aren't getting it as they are not the right color. Who picks the winners and losers? Why not allow all the disadvantaged, no matter their color or back ground, have a chance to access the same programs for a better chance to achieve their dreams.
Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege
America still owes a debt to its black citizens, but government programs to help all 'people of color' are unfair. They should end. WSJ 7-22-10
By JAMES WEBB Mr. Webb, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Virginia.
The NAACP believes the tea party is racist. The tea party believes the NAACP is racist. And Pat Buchanan got into trouble recently by pointing out that if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the Supreme Court, there will not be a single Protestant Justice, although Protestants make up half the U.S. population and dominated the court for generations.
Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future.
I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white.
In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.
How so? Lyndon Johnson's initial program for affirmative action was based on the 13th Amendment and on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which authorized the federal government to take actions in order to eliminate "the badges of slavery." Affirmative action was designed to recognize the uniquely difficult journey of African-Americans. This policy was justifiable and understandable, even to those who came from white cultural groups that had also suffered in socio-economic terms from the Civil War and its aftermath.
The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all "people of color"—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites. It has also lessened the focus on assisting African-Americans, who despite a veneer of successful people at the very top still experience high rates of poverty, drug abuse, incarceration and family breakup.
Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years.
Contrary to assumptions in the law, white America is hardly a monolith. And the journey of white American cultures is so diverse (yes) that one strains to find the logic that could lump them together for the purpose of public policy.
The clearest example of today's misguided policies comes from examining the history of the American South.The old South was a three-tiered society, with blacks and hard-put whites both dominated by white elites who manipulated racial tensions in order to retain power. At the height of slavery, in 1860, less than 5% of whites in the South owned slaves. The eminent black historian John Hope Franklin wrote that "fully three-fourths of the white people in the South had neither slaves nor an immediate economic interest in the maintenance of slavery."The Civil War devastated the South, in human and economic terms. And from post-Civil War Reconstruction to the beginning of World War II, the region was a ravaged place, affecting black and white alike.
In 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt created a national commission to study what he termed "the long and ironic history of the despoiling of this truly American section." At that time, most industries in the South were owned by companies outside the region. Of the South's 1.8 million sharecroppers, 1.2 million were white (a mirror of the population, which was 71% white). The illiteracy rate was five times that of the North-Central states and more than twice that of New England and the Middle Atlantic (despite the waves of European immigrants then flowing to those regions).
The total endowments of all the colleges and universities in the South were less than the endowments of Harvard and Yale alone. The average schoolchild in the South had $25 a year spent on his or her education, compared to $141 for children in New York.
Generations of such deficiencies do not disappear overnight, and they affect the momentum of a culture. In 1974, a National Opinion Research Center (NORC) study of white ethnic groups showed that white Baptists nationwide averaged only 10.7 years of education, a level almost identical to blacks' average of 10.6 years, and well below that of most other white groups. A recent NORC Social Survey of white adults born after World War II showed that in the years 1980-2000, only 18.4% of white Baptists and 21.8% of Irish Protestants—the principal ethnic group that settled the South—had obtained college degrees, compared to a national average of 30.1%, a Jewish average of 73.3%, and an average among those of Chinese and Indian descent of 61.9%.
Policy makers ignored such disparities within America's white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts.
Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end. Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes.
Memo to my fellow politicians: Drop the Procrustean policies and allow harmony to invade the public mindset. Fairness will happen, and bitterness will fade away.
The situation that is on going as we speak concerning the NAACP and the Tea Party is just more of the same. The NAACP believes it is losing control of the narrative, black people are in need of more assistance to gain political clout in Washington to 'level the playing field', in the country to the Tea Party participants and as a result attacks them with the best weapon at the disposal, racism.
That there is no evidence of such occurring in the Tea Party, at least no one in the main stream media has shown any on TV or pictures in the newspapers of actual evidence of this, and rest assured they would do so if they could find it, so using racism as a club they hope to bring back the focus where it belongs, the black community and it's problems.
Diversity, as structured in today's laws, serves to actually make the playing field more uneven. Many that need the help aren't getting it as they are not the right color. Who picks the winners and losers? Why not allow all the disadvantaged, no matter their color or back ground, have a chance to access the same programs for a better chance to achieve their dreams.
Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege
America still owes a debt to its black citizens, but government programs to help all 'people of color' are unfair. They should end. WSJ 7-22-10
By JAMES WEBB Mr. Webb, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Virginia.
The NAACP believes the tea party is racist. The tea party believes the NAACP is racist. And Pat Buchanan got into trouble recently by pointing out that if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the Supreme Court, there will not be a single Protestant Justice, although Protestants make up half the U.S. population and dominated the court for generations.
Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future.
I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white.
In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.
How so? Lyndon Johnson's initial program for affirmative action was based on the 13th Amendment and on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which authorized the federal government to take actions in order to eliminate "the badges of slavery." Affirmative action was designed to recognize the uniquely difficult journey of African-Americans. This policy was justifiable and understandable, even to those who came from white cultural groups that had also suffered in socio-economic terms from the Civil War and its aftermath.
The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all "people of color"—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites. It has also lessened the focus on assisting African-Americans, who despite a veneer of successful people at the very top still experience high rates of poverty, drug abuse, incarceration and family breakup.
Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years.
Contrary to assumptions in the law, white America is hardly a monolith. And the journey of white American cultures is so diverse (yes) that one strains to find the logic that could lump them together for the purpose of public policy.
The clearest example of today's misguided policies comes from examining the history of the American South.The old South was a three-tiered society, with blacks and hard-put whites both dominated by white elites who manipulated racial tensions in order to retain power. At the height of slavery, in 1860, less than 5% of whites in the South owned slaves. The eminent black historian John Hope Franklin wrote that "fully three-fourths of the white people in the South had neither slaves nor an immediate economic interest in the maintenance of slavery."The Civil War devastated the South, in human and economic terms. And from post-Civil War Reconstruction to the beginning of World War II, the region was a ravaged place, affecting black and white alike.
In 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt created a national commission to study what he termed "the long and ironic history of the despoiling of this truly American section." At that time, most industries in the South were owned by companies outside the region. Of the South's 1.8 million sharecroppers, 1.2 million were white (a mirror of the population, which was 71% white). The illiteracy rate was five times that of the North-Central states and more than twice that of New England and the Middle Atlantic (despite the waves of European immigrants then flowing to those regions).
The total endowments of all the colleges and universities in the South were less than the endowments of Harvard and Yale alone. The average schoolchild in the South had $25 a year spent on his or her education, compared to $141 for children in New York.
Generations of such deficiencies do not disappear overnight, and they affect the momentum of a culture. In 1974, a National Opinion Research Center (NORC) study of white ethnic groups showed that white Baptists nationwide averaged only 10.7 years of education, a level almost identical to blacks' average of 10.6 years, and well below that of most other white groups. A recent NORC Social Survey of white adults born after World War II showed that in the years 1980-2000, only 18.4% of white Baptists and 21.8% of Irish Protestants—the principal ethnic group that settled the South—had obtained college degrees, compared to a national average of 30.1%, a Jewish average of 73.3%, and an average among those of Chinese and Indian descent of 61.9%.
Policy makers ignored such disparities within America's white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts.
Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end. Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes.
Memo to my fellow politicians: Drop the Procrustean policies and allow harmony to invade the public mindset. Fairness will happen, and bitterness will fade away.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
America's future Laid Out : Newt Gringrich
Newt Gringrich lays it all on the line for us. This is a must watch video if you are concerned about our country and it's future.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=qtjfMjjce2Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=qtjfMjjce2Y
American Military Heroes : God Bless Them
Portraits of our very best - God love them!
(pictures of our heroes at the end)
The average age of the military man is 19 years. He is a short haired, tight-muscled kid who, under normal circumstances is considered by society as half man, half boy. Not yet dry behind the ears, not old enough to buy a beer, but old enough to die for his country. He never really cared much for work and he would rather wax his own car than wash his father's, but he has never collected unemployment either.
He's a recent High School graduate; he was probably an average student, pursued some form of sport activities, drives a ten year old jalopy and has a steady girlfriend that either broke up with him when he left or swears to be waiting when he returns from half a world away.
He listens to Rock & Roll, Country Hip-hop, Rap,
Jazz or Swing.... and also a 155mm howitzer!
He is 10 or 15 pounds lighter now than when he was at home because he is working and/or fighting from before dawn to well after dusk. He has trouble spelling, so letter writing is a pain for him. But he can field strip a rifle in 30 seconds and reassemble it in less time in the dark; and also recite to you the nomenclature of a machine gun or grenade launcher and use either one effectively....if he must.
He digs foxholes and latrines and can applies first aid like a professional.
He can march until he is told to stop.....
or stop until he is told to march!
He obeys orders instantly and without hesitation, but is not without spirit or individual dignity. He is self-sufficient!
He has two sets of fatigues: he washes one and wears the other. He keeps his canteens full and his feet dry.
He sometimes forgets to brush his teeth but never forgets to clean his rifle. He can cook his own meals, mend his own clothes and fix his own hurts.
If you're thirsty he'll share his water with you and if you are hungry, his food. He'll even split his ammunition with you in the midst of battle when you run low.
He has learned to use his hands like weapons and weapons like they were his hands.
He can save your life - or take it, because that is his job.
He will often do twice the work of a civilian,
draw half the pay, and still find ironic humor in it all.
He has seen more suffering and death than
he should have in his short lifetime.
He has wept in public and in private for friends
who have fallen in combat and is unashamed.
He feels every note of the National Anthem vibrate through his body while at rigid attention, while tempering the
burning desire to "square-away" those around him who haven't bothered to stand, remove their hat or even stop talking.
But in an odd twist day in and day out, far from home,
he defends their right to be disrespectful! And just as his Father, Grandfather and Great-grandfather did,
HE is paying the price for our freedom.
Beardless or not, he is not a boy. He is the American Fighting Man that has kept this country free for over 200 years.
He has asked nothing in return, except our friendship and understanding.
Remember him, always, for he has earned our respect and admiration with his blood.
And now we even have women over there in danger, doing their part in this tradition of going to War when our nation calls us to do so.
As you go to bed tonight, remember all the photo below;
A short lull, a little shade and a picture of loved ones in their helmets:
When you receive this, please stop for a moment and say this prayer for our ground troops in Afghanistan, sailors on ships, and airmen in the air and for those in Iraq, Afghanistan and all foreign countries:
"Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands.
Protect them as they protect us.
Bless them and their families for the selfless acts they perform for us in our time of need. Amen."
This can be very powerful..
Of all the gifts one can give a US Soldier, Sailor, Coastguardsman, Marine or Airman...a prayer is the very best!
ATT26627061.jpg, ATT26627072.jpg, ATT26627083.jpg, ATT26627094.jpg, ATT26627105.jpg, ATT26627116.jpg, ATT26627127.jpg, ATT26627138.jpg, ATT26627149.gif
(pictures of our heroes at the end)
The average age of the military man is 19 years. He is a short haired, tight-muscled kid who, under normal circumstances is considered by society as half man, half boy. Not yet dry behind the ears, not old enough to buy a beer, but old enough to die for his country. He never really cared much for work and he would rather wax his own car than wash his father's, but he has never collected unemployment either.
He's a recent High School graduate; he was probably an average student, pursued some form of sport activities, drives a ten year old jalopy and has a steady girlfriend that either broke up with him when he left or swears to be waiting when he returns from half a world away.
He listens to Rock & Roll, Country Hip-hop, Rap,
Jazz or Swing.... and also a 155mm howitzer!
He is 10 or 15 pounds lighter now than when he was at home because he is working and/or fighting from before dawn to well after dusk. He has trouble spelling, so letter writing is a pain for him. But he can field strip a rifle in 30 seconds and reassemble it in less time in the dark; and also recite to you the nomenclature of a machine gun or grenade launcher and use either one effectively....if he must.
He digs foxholes and latrines and can applies first aid like a professional.
He can march until he is told to stop.....
or stop until he is told to march!
He obeys orders instantly and without hesitation, but is not without spirit or individual dignity. He is self-sufficient!
He has two sets of fatigues: he washes one and wears the other. He keeps his canteens full and his feet dry.
He sometimes forgets to brush his teeth but never forgets to clean his rifle. He can cook his own meals, mend his own clothes and fix his own hurts.
If you're thirsty he'll share his water with you and if you are hungry, his food. He'll even split his ammunition with you in the midst of battle when you run low.
He has learned to use his hands like weapons and weapons like they were his hands.
He can save your life - or take it, because that is his job.
He will often do twice the work of a civilian,
draw half the pay, and still find ironic humor in it all.
He has seen more suffering and death than
he should have in his short lifetime.
He has wept in public and in private for friends
who have fallen in combat and is unashamed.
He feels every note of the National Anthem vibrate through his body while at rigid attention, while tempering the
burning desire to "square-away" those around him who haven't bothered to stand, remove their hat or even stop talking.
But in an odd twist day in and day out, far from home,
he defends their right to be disrespectful! And just as his Father, Grandfather and Great-grandfather did,
HE is paying the price for our freedom.
Beardless or not, he is not a boy. He is the American Fighting Man that has kept this country free for over 200 years.
He has asked nothing in return, except our friendship and understanding.
Remember him, always, for he has earned our respect and admiration with his blood.
And now we even have women over there in danger, doing their part in this tradition of going to War when our nation calls us to do so.
As you go to bed tonight, remember all the photo below;
A short lull, a little shade and a picture of loved ones in their helmets:
When you receive this, please stop for a moment and say this prayer for our ground troops in Afghanistan, sailors on ships, and airmen in the air and for those in Iraq, Afghanistan and all foreign countries:
"Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands.
Protect them as they protect us.
Bless them and their families for the selfless acts they perform for us in our time of need. Amen."
This can be very powerful..
Of all the gifts one can give a US Soldier, Sailor, Coastguardsman, Marine or Airman...a prayer is the very best!
ATT26627061.jpg, ATT26627072.jpg, ATT26627083.jpg, ATT26627094.jpg, ATT26627105.jpg, ATT26627116.jpg, ATT26627127.jpg, ATT26627138.jpg, ATT26627149.gif
Friday, July 23, 2010
Tax Cuts GONE In January : Families Hardest Hit
Just when you thought our financial situation couldn't get worse, it does. Obama's agenda is clear, crush the will to the people to achieve by taking their rewards for hard work.
Never forget Obama's objective, control of the population and it resources. Transforming the American Republic into a democratic socialist commune.
Think about this and how it will effect us all before you make a decision on who to vote for in November.
THE TAX TSUNAMI ON THE HORIZON
Source: Editorial, "The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon," Investor's Business Daily, July 21, 2010.
Many voters are looking forward to 2011, hoping a new Congress will put the country back on the right track. But unless something's done soon, the new year will also come with a raft of tax hikes -- including a return of the death tax -- that will be real killers, says Investor's Business Daily (IBD).
Through the end of this year, the federal estate tax rate is zero -- thanks to the package of broad-based tax cuts that President Bush pushed through to get the economy going earlier in the decade. But as of midnight Dec. 31, the death tax returns -- at a rate of 55 percent on estates of $1 million or more.
Resurrection of the death tax, however, isn't the only tax problem that will be ushered in Jan. 1, says IBD. Many other cuts from the Bush administration are set to disappear and a new set of taxes will materialize. And it's not just the rich who will pay:
The lowest bracket for the personal income tax, for instance, moves up 50 percent -- to 15 percent from 10 percent.
The next lowest bracket -- 25 percent -- will rise to 28 percent, and the old 28 percent bracket will be 31 percent.
At the higher end, the 33 percent bracket is pushed to 36 percent and the 35 percent bracket becomes 39.6 percent. But the damage doesn't stop there, says IBD:
The marriage penalty also makes a comeback, and the capital gains tax will jump 33 percent -- to 20 percent from 15 percent.
The tax on dividends will go all the way from 15 percent to 39.6 percent -- a 164 percent increase. Both the capital gains and dividend taxes will go up further in 2013 as the health care reform adds a 3.8 percent Medicare levy for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and joint filers making more than $250,000.
Other tax hikes include halving the child tax credit to $500 from $1,000 and fixing the standard deduction for couples at the same level as it is for single filers.
Letting the Bush cuts expire will cost taxpayers $115 billion next year alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and $2.6 trillion through 2020.
Never forget Obama's objective, control of the population and it resources. Transforming the American Republic into a democratic socialist commune.
Think about this and how it will effect us all before you make a decision on who to vote for in November.
THE TAX TSUNAMI ON THE HORIZON
Source: Editorial, "The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon," Investor's Business Daily, July 21, 2010.
Many voters are looking forward to 2011, hoping a new Congress will put the country back on the right track. But unless something's done soon, the new year will also come with a raft of tax hikes -- including a return of the death tax -- that will be real killers, says Investor's Business Daily (IBD).
Through the end of this year, the federal estate tax rate is zero -- thanks to the package of broad-based tax cuts that President Bush pushed through to get the economy going earlier in the decade. But as of midnight Dec. 31, the death tax returns -- at a rate of 55 percent on estates of $1 million or more.
Resurrection of the death tax, however, isn't the only tax problem that will be ushered in Jan. 1, says IBD. Many other cuts from the Bush administration are set to disappear and a new set of taxes will materialize. And it's not just the rich who will pay:
The lowest bracket for the personal income tax, for instance, moves up 50 percent -- to 15 percent from 10 percent.
The next lowest bracket -- 25 percent -- will rise to 28 percent, and the old 28 percent bracket will be 31 percent.
At the higher end, the 33 percent bracket is pushed to 36 percent and the 35 percent bracket becomes 39.6 percent. But the damage doesn't stop there, says IBD:
The marriage penalty also makes a comeback, and the capital gains tax will jump 33 percent -- to 20 percent from 15 percent.
The tax on dividends will go all the way from 15 percent to 39.6 percent -- a 164 percent increase. Both the capital gains and dividend taxes will go up further in 2013 as the health care reform adds a 3.8 percent Medicare levy for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and joint filers making more than $250,000.
Other tax hikes include halving the child tax credit to $500 from $1,000 and fixing the standard deduction for couples at the same level as it is for single filers.
Letting the Bush cuts expire will cost taxpayers $115 billion next year alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and $2.6 trillion through 2020.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Americans Work Longer Than Europeans : American Exceptionalism
I think that we Americans work more that our brothers and sisters in Europe is we have a desire to be better than we are. We want something more, better than what we have now. It drives us.
This is why America is 'exceptional'. And what is so cool, there is always something better in America that we can shoot for.
HIGHER TAXES RESPONSIBLE FOR EUROPE'S LOWER PRODUCTIVITY
Source: James K. Glassman, "Higher Taxes Responsible For Europe's Lower Productivity," Commentary Magazine, July/August 2010.
In 2004, the year he won the Nobel Prize, Edward Prescott, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, published a paper titled "Why Do Americans Work So Much More than Europeans?" The data were stunning, says James K. Glassman, former undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs and the current executive director of the George W. Bush Institute in Dallas.
Prescott found that the average output per adult between 1993 and 1996 in the United States was 75 percent greater than in Italy, 49 percent greater than in the United Kingdom, and 35 percent greater than in France and Germany. "Most of the differences in output," he wrote, were "accounted for by differences in hours worked per person and not by differences in productivity."
In other words, Americans don't work any more efficiently than Germans; we just work a lot more. Not only do we work longer hours each week and take fewer vacations; we also work more years of our lives, and a higher proportion of our adults are working:
In 2007, for example, American men, on average, retired at age 64.6, while Frenchmen retired at just 58.7 and Austrians at 58.9. That same year, 72 percent of Americans, aged 15 to 64, were in the workforce, compared with 59 percent of Italians and 64 percent of French.
The result is that Americans produce and earn considerably more than Europeans:
In the United States we make $47,000, compared with $36,000 in Germany and the United Kingdom, and $34,000 in France.
In fact, as the Michigan State economist Mark Perry points out on his blog, Carpe Diem, citizens of America's poorest state, Mississippi, have a higher GDP per capita than Italians, and Alabamans surpass Germans, French and Belgians. Prescott fingered the culprit: high taxes. Taxation rates on the next euro of income became so high that people were discouraged from working -- especially with the enticements of early retirement.
But why are taxes so high in Europe? Certainly not to maintain a strong defense but rather to pour money into a welfare state that provides lavish support to retirees, perennial students, and others who aren't working.
In other words, Europeans have chosen to have workers support nonworkers in their leisure, explains Glassman.
This is why America is 'exceptional'. And what is so cool, there is always something better in America that we can shoot for.
HIGHER TAXES RESPONSIBLE FOR EUROPE'S LOWER PRODUCTIVITY
Source: James K. Glassman, "Higher Taxes Responsible For Europe's Lower Productivity," Commentary Magazine, July/August 2010.
In 2004, the year he won the Nobel Prize, Edward Prescott, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, published a paper titled "Why Do Americans Work So Much More than Europeans?" The data were stunning, says James K. Glassman, former undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs and the current executive director of the George W. Bush Institute in Dallas.
Prescott found that the average output per adult between 1993 and 1996 in the United States was 75 percent greater than in Italy, 49 percent greater than in the United Kingdom, and 35 percent greater than in France and Germany. "Most of the differences in output," he wrote, were "accounted for by differences in hours worked per person and not by differences in productivity."
In other words, Americans don't work any more efficiently than Germans; we just work a lot more. Not only do we work longer hours each week and take fewer vacations; we also work more years of our lives, and a higher proportion of our adults are working:
In 2007, for example, American men, on average, retired at age 64.6, while Frenchmen retired at just 58.7 and Austrians at 58.9. That same year, 72 percent of Americans, aged 15 to 64, were in the workforce, compared with 59 percent of Italians and 64 percent of French.
The result is that Americans produce and earn considerably more than Europeans:
In the United States we make $47,000, compared with $36,000 in Germany and the United Kingdom, and $34,000 in France.
In fact, as the Michigan State economist Mark Perry points out on his blog, Carpe Diem, citizens of America's poorest state, Mississippi, have a higher GDP per capita than Italians, and Alabamans surpass Germans, French and Belgians. Prescott fingered the culprit: high taxes. Taxation rates on the next euro of income became so high that people were discouraged from working -- especially with the enticements of early retirement.
But why are taxes so high in Europe? Certainly not to maintain a strong defense but rather to pour money into a welfare state that provides lavish support to retirees, perennial students, and others who aren't working.
In other words, Europeans have chosen to have workers support nonworkers in their leisure, explains Glassman.
Czechs Remember America
Take a few minutes to look at these pictures and see why Europeans have stronger feelings about America than a lot of Americans. How Sad is this.
mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg
mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg, mime-attachment.jpeg
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Obama's Car Czar Picks Chrysler Dealerships by Campagin Donations
This is national news but only it seems on FOX and talk radio - the other news coming to light is the complete break down of jouralism. It seems the main stream media has decided to use lies and misinformation as a tool for their personal agenda.
Read this and then you decide what is right and true.
Chrysler Railroad story
Sooner or later it will all come to light!
Chrysler's Railroad
This could be a scandal of epic proportions and one that makes Nixon's Watergate or Clinton 's Monica Lewinsky affair pale by comparison.. Why was there neither rhyme nor reason as to which dealerships of the Chrysler Corporation were to be closed? Roll the clock back to the weeks just before Chrysler declared bankruptcy.
Chrysler, like GM, was in dire financial straits and federal government "graciously" offered to "buy the company" and keep them out of bankruptcy and "save jobs." Chrysler was, in the words of Obama and his administration, "Too big to fail," same story with GM. The feds organized their "Automotive Task Force" to fix Chrysler and GM.
Obama, in an act that is 100% unconstitutional, appointed a guy named Steve Rattner to be the White House's official Car Czar - literally, that's what his title is. Rattner is the liaison between Obama, Chrysler, and GM.
Initially, the national media reported that Chrysler 'had made this list of dealerships'. Not true! The Washington Examiner, Newsmax, Fox News and a host of other news agencies discovered that the list of dealerships was put together by the "Automotive Task Force" headed by no one other than Mr. Steve Rattner. Now the plot thickens. Remember earlier we said that there was neither rhyme nor reason why certain dealerships were closed? Actually there's a very interesting pattern as to who was closed down.
Again, on May 27, 2009, The Washington Examiner and Newsmax exposed the connection. Amazingly, of the 789 dealerships closed by the federal government, 788 had donated money, exclusively to Republican political causes, while contributing nothing to Democratic political causes. The only "Democratic" dealership on the list was found to have donated $7,700 to Hillary's campaign, and a bit over $2,000 to John Edwards. This same dealership, reportedly, also gave $200.00 to Obama's campaign. Does that seem a little odd to you?
Steve Rattner is the guy who put the list together. Well, he happens to be married to a Maureen White. Maureen happens to be the former national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As such, she has access to campaign donation records from everyone in the nation- Republican or Democrat. But of course, this is just a wacky "coincidence," we're certain. Then comes another really wacky "coincidence." On that list of dealerships being closed down, a weird thing happened in Arkansas , North Louisiana, and Southern Missouri .
It seems that Bill Clinton's former White House Chief of Staff, Mack McClarty, owns a chain of dealership in that region, partnered with a fellow by the name of Robert Johnson. Johnson happens to be founder of Black Entertainment Television and was a huge Obama supporter and financier. These guys own a half dozen Chrysler stores under the company title of RLJ-McClarty-Landers.
Interestingly, none of their dealerships were ordered closed - not one! While all of their competing Chrysler/Dodge and Jeep dealership were! Eight dealerships located near the dealerships owned by McClarty and Johnson were ordered shut down. Thus by pure luck, these two major Obama supporters now have virtual monopoly on Chrysler sales in their zone. Isn't that amazing?
Go look in The Washington Examiner, the story's there, and it's in a dozen or so other web-based news organizations; this isn't being made up. Now if you thought Chrysler was owned by Fiat, you are mistaken. Under the federal court ruling, 65% of Chrysler is now owned by the federal government and the United Auto Workers union! Fiat owns 20%. The other 15% is still privately owned and presumably will be traded on the stock market.
Obama smiles and says he doesn't want to run the auto industry. As horrifying as this is to comprehend, and being as how this used to be the United States of America , it would appear that the president has the power to destroy private businesses and eliminate upwards of 100,000 jobs just because they don't agree with his political agenda. This is Nazi Germany stuff, and it's happening right here, right now, in our back yard.
There are voices in Washington demanding an explanation, but the "Automotive Task Force" has released no information to the public or to any of the senators demanding answers for what has been done. Keep your ear to the ground for more on this story. If you've ever wanted to make a difference about anything in your life, get on the phone to your national senator or representative in the House and demand an investigation into this. Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said, "All that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Car Czar No More
An amazing thing happened as this story was going to press. Obama's Car Czar, Steve Rattner, resigned on July 13 and was promptly replaced by former steel workers union boss Ron Bloom. According to CBS News, Rattner left "to return to private life and spend time with his family." Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said, "I hope that he takes another opportunity to bring his unique skills to government service in the future." By the way, Rattner is under investigation for a multi-million dollar pay-to-play investment bank scandal in New York ..... Uh-oh! But, we're certain that had nothing to do with his resignation.
And, according to several news sources out there, there are rumors he's being investigated for what could be pay-to-play scandal involving the closing of Chrysler and GM dealerships. Really? Again, that couldn't have anything to with his resignation-that's ridiculous!
Like CBS said, this guy just wants to "spend more quality time with his family." Obama has 32 personally appointed "czars" who answer to no one but him, all of whom are acting without any Constitutional authority.. But hey, we're sure they all have "unique skills,".......as Tim Geithner likes to say! SOOOOO.HOWS THE CHANGE WORKING FOR YOU?.. Check it out at the following websites..... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Furor-grows-over-partisan-car-dealer-closings-46261447.html http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-auto-policy-All-in-the-Democratic-family-44414452.html
Read this and then you decide what is right and true.
Chrysler Railroad story
Sooner or later it will all come to light!
Chrysler's Railroad
This could be a scandal of epic proportions and one that makes Nixon's Watergate or Clinton 's Monica Lewinsky affair pale by comparison.. Why was there neither rhyme nor reason as to which dealerships of the Chrysler Corporation were to be closed? Roll the clock back to the weeks just before Chrysler declared bankruptcy.
Chrysler, like GM, was in dire financial straits and federal government "graciously" offered to "buy the company" and keep them out of bankruptcy and "save jobs." Chrysler was, in the words of Obama and his administration, "Too big to fail," same story with GM. The feds organized their "Automotive Task Force" to fix Chrysler and GM.
Obama, in an act that is 100% unconstitutional, appointed a guy named Steve Rattner to be the White House's official Car Czar - literally, that's what his title is. Rattner is the liaison between Obama, Chrysler, and GM.
Initially, the national media reported that Chrysler 'had made this list of dealerships'. Not true! The Washington Examiner, Newsmax, Fox News and a host of other news agencies discovered that the list of dealerships was put together by the "Automotive Task Force" headed by no one other than Mr. Steve Rattner. Now the plot thickens. Remember earlier we said that there was neither rhyme nor reason why certain dealerships were closed? Actually there's a very interesting pattern as to who was closed down.
Again, on May 27, 2009, The Washington Examiner and Newsmax exposed the connection. Amazingly, of the 789 dealerships closed by the federal government, 788 had donated money, exclusively to Republican political causes, while contributing nothing to Democratic political causes. The only "Democratic" dealership on the list was found to have donated $7,700 to Hillary's campaign, and a bit over $2,000 to John Edwards. This same dealership, reportedly, also gave $200.00 to Obama's campaign. Does that seem a little odd to you?
Steve Rattner is the guy who put the list together. Well, he happens to be married to a Maureen White. Maureen happens to be the former national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As such, she has access to campaign donation records from everyone in the nation- Republican or Democrat. But of course, this is just a wacky "coincidence," we're certain. Then comes another really wacky "coincidence." On that list of dealerships being closed down, a weird thing happened in Arkansas , North Louisiana, and Southern Missouri .
It seems that Bill Clinton's former White House Chief of Staff, Mack McClarty, owns a chain of dealership in that region, partnered with a fellow by the name of Robert Johnson. Johnson happens to be founder of Black Entertainment Television and was a huge Obama supporter and financier. These guys own a half dozen Chrysler stores under the company title of RLJ-McClarty-Landers.
Interestingly, none of their dealerships were ordered closed - not one! While all of their competing Chrysler/Dodge and Jeep dealership were! Eight dealerships located near the dealerships owned by McClarty and Johnson were ordered shut down. Thus by pure luck, these two major Obama supporters now have virtual monopoly on Chrysler sales in their zone. Isn't that amazing?
Go look in The Washington Examiner, the story's there, and it's in a dozen or so other web-based news organizations; this isn't being made up. Now if you thought Chrysler was owned by Fiat, you are mistaken. Under the federal court ruling, 65% of Chrysler is now owned by the federal government and the United Auto Workers union! Fiat owns 20%. The other 15% is still privately owned and presumably will be traded on the stock market.
Obama smiles and says he doesn't want to run the auto industry. As horrifying as this is to comprehend, and being as how this used to be the United States of America , it would appear that the president has the power to destroy private businesses and eliminate upwards of 100,000 jobs just because they don't agree with his political agenda. This is Nazi Germany stuff, and it's happening right here, right now, in our back yard.
There are voices in Washington demanding an explanation, but the "Automotive Task Force" has released no information to the public or to any of the senators demanding answers for what has been done. Keep your ear to the ground for more on this story. If you've ever wanted to make a difference about anything in your life, get on the phone to your national senator or representative in the House and demand an investigation into this. Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said, "All that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Car Czar No More
An amazing thing happened as this story was going to press. Obama's Car Czar, Steve Rattner, resigned on July 13 and was promptly replaced by former steel workers union boss Ron Bloom. According to CBS News, Rattner left "to return to private life and spend time with his family." Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said, "I hope that he takes another opportunity to bring his unique skills to government service in the future." By the way, Rattner is under investigation for a multi-million dollar pay-to-play investment bank scandal in New York ..... Uh-oh! But, we're certain that had nothing to do with his resignation.
And, according to several news sources out there, there are rumors he's being investigated for what could be pay-to-play scandal involving the closing of Chrysler and GM dealerships. Really? Again, that couldn't have anything to with his resignation-that's ridiculous!
Like CBS said, this guy just wants to "spend more quality time with his family." Obama has 32 personally appointed "czars" who answer to no one but him, all of whom are acting without any Constitutional authority.. But hey, we're sure they all have "unique skills,".......as Tim Geithner likes to say! SOOOOO.HOWS THE CHANGE WORKING FOR YOU?.. Check it out at the following websites..... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Furor-grows-over-partisan-car-dealer-closings-46261447.html http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-auto-policy-All-in-the-Democratic-family-44414452.html
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Pepsi's New Can Changes History?
I have not seen the new Pepsi can yet but then I don't drink Pepsi. I stopped drinking Pepsi since the CEO stated, at a commencement gathering, that the United States was the problem in the world as we, as a matter of routine, give the 'rigid digit' to the rest of the world, forged ahead to do anything that we want to advance our exceptionalism. Of course, other countries have no self interest in advancing their national interests, right?
This was several years ago, but I decided right then that she was just another liberal socialist among many that has decided to redirect America's right to sovereignty.
Another point along this same line is the ad that Shopco used on the 4th of July. They used the 'peace' sign to advertise t-shirts that were red, white and blue with stars and stripes. This is the 'sign' that the monsters in the 60's used to hide behind as they destroyed public and private property in the name of peace, as well as the taking of lives.
You decide what's right after you look at the new Pepsi can and what it says to all of us.
(Note - I don't know where this came from or who the author is but none the less, I fully expect that if this message is true that appears on the new soda can that comes from Pepsi headquarters, it will have a negative capitalist twist.)
Subject: DON'T BUY PEPSI IN THE NEW CAN!
Don't buy Pepsi in the new can. Pepsi has a new 'patriotic' can coming out with pictures of the Empire State Building, and the Pledge of Allegiance on them. However, Pepsi left out two little words on the pledge, 'Under God.'
Pepsi said they didn't want to offend anyone.
In that case, we don't want to offend anyone at the Pepsi corporate office, either! So if we don't buy any Pepsi products, they will not be offended when they don't receive our money that has the words 'In God We Trust' on it.
This was several years ago, but I decided right then that she was just another liberal socialist among many that has decided to redirect America's right to sovereignty.
Another point along this same line is the ad that Shopco used on the 4th of July. They used the 'peace' sign to advertise t-shirts that were red, white and blue with stars and stripes. This is the 'sign' that the monsters in the 60's used to hide behind as they destroyed public and private property in the name of peace, as well as the taking of lives.
You decide what's right after you look at the new Pepsi can and what it says to all of us.
(Note - I don't know where this came from or who the author is but none the less, I fully expect that if this message is true that appears on the new soda can that comes from Pepsi headquarters, it will have a negative capitalist twist.)
Subject: DON'T BUY PEPSI IN THE NEW CAN!
Don't buy Pepsi in the new can. Pepsi has a new 'patriotic' can coming out with pictures of the Empire State Building, and the Pledge of Allegiance on them. However, Pepsi left out two little words on the pledge, 'Under God.'
Pepsi said they didn't want to offend anyone.
In that case, we don't want to offend anyone at the Pepsi corporate office, either! So if we don't buy any Pepsi products, they will not be offended when they don't receive our money that has the words 'In God We Trust' on it.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Freedom Is NOT Free : Someone Has To Pay!
Every one knows the old saying, 'there is no free lunch' and it has proven true over and over again. But there are so many in our country that still believe freedom is a right, not a privilege that was bought and paid for in blood and sacrifice.
This short video has a telling message for all of us who know the meaning of
"Freedom means having nothing else to lose".
Think about it for just a minute, and then you decide what is more important in our lives to give up freedom for.
When you vote in November, it will be a vote that will determine whether we have freedom for our selves and our off spring, or we will vote to give up freedom for the wisdom of others that think they know what is best for all of us. It is that important.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTb6qdPu8JE&feature=player_embedded
This short video has a telling message for all of us who know the meaning of
"Freedom means having nothing else to lose".
Think about it for just a minute, and then you decide what is more important in our lives to give up freedom for.
When you vote in November, it will be a vote that will determine whether we have freedom for our selves and our off spring, or we will vote to give up freedom for the wisdom of others that think they know what is best for all of us. It is that important.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTb6qdPu8JE&feature=player_embedded
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Financial Bill Will Destroy Small Business / Increase Unemployment
I find it almost incomprehensible given how Barney Frank and Chris Dodd caused the housing disaster almost single handily all through the 90's and up to the present, that they continue to have the power to continue to cause more chaos in the financial markets.
With America on the ropes, heading toward collapse, congress and the president push forward an agenda that seems intended to make our bad situation worse.
This article, from the WSJ, points some interesting and troubling aspects of the new financial bill now working it's way through congress. And what is worse, Scott Brown is turning out to be more Democrat than Republican. He ran and won on the principles of small government but now that he is in power he has decided that it is best to just 'go along'. He can not be counted on to vote common sense. He is compromised.
THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE -- II
Source: Editorial, "The Uncertainty Principle - II," Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2010.
The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill passed by the Senate yesterday promises to generate historic levels of red tape. But apparently the 2,300 pages are so complicated that a debate has broken out over precisely how many new regulatory rule-makings it will require, says the Wall Street Journal.
According to an analysis by the Davis Polk & Wardwell law firm:
At least 243 new federal rule-makings are on the way, not to mention 67 one-time studies and another 22 new periodic reports. The attorneys were careful to note that this was a low-ball estimate, counting only new regulations mandated by the bill.
Now comes Tom Quaadman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who doesn't quarrel with the Davis Polk estimate but has added rule-makings authorized by this legislation to those that are mandated:
He says American businesses should expect a whopping 533 new sets of rules.
To put this number in perspective, Sarbanes-Oxley, Washington's last exercise in financial regulatory overreach, demanded only 16 new regulations. Thus he reasons that Dodd-Frank "is over 30 times the size of SOX."
Quaadman may be selling Dodd-Frank short, says the Journal. Neither his analysis nor the one from Davis Polk counts duplicative rule-makings, when various agencies create different rules governing the same activity, as they are empowered to do in various Dodd-Frank provisions.
While it might seem that the regulatory uncertainty created by the bill won't last much longer than a decade as new rules are implemented, that also could be optimistic.
When regulators are granted new authorities without expiration dates on their powers, the rule-making possibilities are infinite, says the Journal.
The most likely result of Dodd-Frank in the near term is a generally higher cost of credit, and a bigger market share for the largest banks that can more easily absorb the new regulatory costs. In the longer term, do not expect it to prevent the next financial mania and panic, says the Journal.
With America on the ropes, heading toward collapse, congress and the president push forward an agenda that seems intended to make our bad situation worse.
This article, from the WSJ, points some interesting and troubling aspects of the new financial bill now working it's way through congress. And what is worse, Scott Brown is turning out to be more Democrat than Republican. He ran and won on the principles of small government but now that he is in power he has decided that it is best to just 'go along'. He can not be counted on to vote common sense. He is compromised.
THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE -- II
Source: Editorial, "The Uncertainty Principle - II," Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2010.
The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill passed by the Senate yesterday promises to generate historic levels of red tape. But apparently the 2,300 pages are so complicated that a debate has broken out over precisely how many new regulatory rule-makings it will require, says the Wall Street Journal.
According to an analysis by the Davis Polk & Wardwell law firm:
At least 243 new federal rule-makings are on the way, not to mention 67 one-time studies and another 22 new periodic reports. The attorneys were careful to note that this was a low-ball estimate, counting only new regulations mandated by the bill.
Now comes Tom Quaadman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who doesn't quarrel with the Davis Polk estimate but has added rule-makings authorized by this legislation to those that are mandated:
He says American businesses should expect a whopping 533 new sets of rules.
To put this number in perspective, Sarbanes-Oxley, Washington's last exercise in financial regulatory overreach, demanded only 16 new regulations. Thus he reasons that Dodd-Frank "is over 30 times the size of SOX."
Quaadman may be selling Dodd-Frank short, says the Journal. Neither his analysis nor the one from Davis Polk counts duplicative rule-makings, when various agencies create different rules governing the same activity, as they are empowered to do in various Dodd-Frank provisions.
While it might seem that the regulatory uncertainty created by the bill won't last much longer than a decade as new rules are implemented, that also could be optimistic.
When regulators are granted new authorities without expiration dates on their powers, the rule-making possibilities are infinite, says the Journal.
The most likely result of Dodd-Frank in the near term is a generally higher cost of credit, and a bigger market share for the largest banks that can more easily absorb the new regulatory costs. In the longer term, do not expect it to prevent the next financial mania and panic, says the Journal.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Unions Running Scared : Organization on Demand - NRLB
How long before the entire economy tanks? How long before businesses find that there is no way to meet a payroll under current conditions of a failing economy? How long before businesses go under for the last time under new laws that demand union wages?
Do the unions care if all their works are unemployed? Is it more important to have more companies organized under unions grip then to make sure the workers actually have a job?
Wait, here's a novel idea - why don't the unions get together and buy out the current owners of the corporations they work for now, and then they can run the companies the way they like. Employee owned and run companies have a great history, right? That way they can give themselves huge wage increases without any hassle.
WOW - a no hassle work place. Who knew?
FEDERAL LABOR BOARD SETS UP SNAP UNION ELECTIONS
Source: Paul Kersey, "Federal Labor Board Sets Up Snap Union Elections," Mackinac, July 8, 2010.
Unable to push through legislation authorizing the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) and its "card check" rule, which would allow unions to make use of authorization cards signed by individual workers in place of the secret ballot, Big Labor now appears to be going to their fallback position, the so-called "snap" election, says Paul Kersey, director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center.
How do snap elections work?
A vote is held quickly when union support is at its highest and before the employer has a chance to make its opinion heard. Even better (at least from the union's point of view) would be if the election could be held without the employer even knowing about the petition; that's the one way to guarantee that workers will not hear the case against unionization.
The problem with holding snap elections up to now has been that the most logical place to hold the vote is at the workplace, although the sight of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) officials setting up voting booths is kind of a giveaway that something is up, says Kersey.
Years ago new NLRB appointee Craig Becker opined in a law review article that employers should have no right to speak on the topic of unionization, and one way to make that a reality would be to hold elections quickly and away from the workplace. And one way to do that would be through cyberspace. The NLRB has formally requested information from companies on Internet voting, potentially a very troubling development depending on what the NLRB has in mind, says Kersey.
With one exception -- occasionally a workforce will be widely dispersed and it won't be practical to set up a central voting location -- the old-fashioned voting booth is clearly superior to voting by mail or by the web because NLRB officials can verify that votes are cast by eligible workers, in secrecy and without risk of coercion, and counted correctly.
With voting by mail or by the Internet, however, there is a real possibility that workers could be forced into voting while under surveillance or even by physical threats, says Kersey.
Do the unions care if all their works are unemployed? Is it more important to have more companies organized under unions grip then to make sure the workers actually have a job?
Wait, here's a novel idea - why don't the unions get together and buy out the current owners of the corporations they work for now, and then they can run the companies the way they like. Employee owned and run companies have a great history, right? That way they can give themselves huge wage increases without any hassle.
WOW - a no hassle work place. Who knew?
FEDERAL LABOR BOARD SETS UP SNAP UNION ELECTIONS
Source: Paul Kersey, "Federal Labor Board Sets Up Snap Union Elections," Mackinac, July 8, 2010.
Unable to push through legislation authorizing the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) and its "card check" rule, which would allow unions to make use of authorization cards signed by individual workers in place of the secret ballot, Big Labor now appears to be going to their fallback position, the so-called "snap" election, says Paul Kersey, director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center.
How do snap elections work?
A vote is held quickly when union support is at its highest and before the employer has a chance to make its opinion heard. Even better (at least from the union's point of view) would be if the election could be held without the employer even knowing about the petition; that's the one way to guarantee that workers will not hear the case against unionization.
The problem with holding snap elections up to now has been that the most logical place to hold the vote is at the workplace, although the sight of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) officials setting up voting booths is kind of a giveaway that something is up, says Kersey.
Years ago new NLRB appointee Craig Becker opined in a law review article that employers should have no right to speak on the topic of unionization, and one way to make that a reality would be to hold elections quickly and away from the workplace. And one way to do that would be through cyberspace. The NLRB has formally requested information from companies on Internet voting, potentially a very troubling development depending on what the NLRB has in mind, says Kersey.
With one exception -- occasionally a workforce will be widely dispersed and it won't be practical to set up a central voting location -- the old-fashioned voting booth is clearly superior to voting by mail or by the web because NLRB officials can verify that votes are cast by eligible workers, in secrecy and without risk of coercion, and counted correctly.
With voting by mail or by the Internet, however, there is a real possibility that workers could be forced into voting while under surveillance or even by physical threats, says Kersey.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Obama Economist Romer Delusional : Imaginary Jobs Saved
I guess all you have to do to fix a problem if you work for Obama is to make up a solution. To actually have to fix a problem is way too difficult and unnecessary. All that is necessary is to proclaim all is well even in the face of the entire population knowing that what you are saying is untrue.
Christina Romer is a merchant of misinformation.
The Obama administration entire policy for any situation is to proclaim success without any facts to back up the claim. As Obama himself said during his campaign, "there just words".
THREE MILLION IMAGINARY JOBS
Source: Editorial, "Three Million Imaginary Jobs," Wall Street Journal, July 15, 2010.
It may be that the last people in America who believe that the $862 billion economic stimulus of February 2009 created millions of net new jobs are Vice President Joe Biden and the staff economists in the White House.
Yesterday, President Obama's chief economist announced that the plan had "created or saved" between 2.5 million and 3.6 million jobs and raised gross domestic product (GDP) by 2.7 percent to 3.2 percent through June 30.
Christina Romer went so far as to claim that the 3.5 million new jobs that she promised while the stimulus was being debated in Congress will arrive "two quarters earlier than anticipated." The official White House line is that the plan is working better than even they had hoped.
However:
Since February 2009 the U.S. economy has lost a net 2.35 million jobs. Using the White House "created or saved" measure means that even if there were only three million Americans left with jobs today, the White House could claim that everyone was saved by the stimulus, says the Wall Street Journal.
The White House also naturally insists that things would be much worse without the stimulus billions spent on the likes of Medicaid payments, high speed rail projects, unemployment benefits and windmills. President Obama said recently in Racine, Wisconsin, that the economy "would have been a lot worse" and the unemployment rate would have gone to "12 or 13, or 15 [percent]" if government hadn't spent all of that money.
This is called a counterfactual: a what would have happened scenario that can't be refuted. What we do know is what White House economists at the time said would happen if the stimulus didn't pass, says the Journal:
They said the unemployment rate would peak at 9 percent without the stimulus (there's your counterfactual) and that with the stimulus the rate would stay at 8 percent or below.
In other words, today there are 700,000 fewer jobs than Romer predicted we would have if we had done nothing at all.
If this is a job creation success, what does failure look like, asks the Journal?
Christina Romer is a merchant of misinformation.
The Obama administration entire policy for any situation is to proclaim success without any facts to back up the claim. As Obama himself said during his campaign, "there just words".
THREE MILLION IMAGINARY JOBS
Source: Editorial, "Three Million Imaginary Jobs," Wall Street Journal, July 15, 2010.
It may be that the last people in America who believe that the $862 billion economic stimulus of February 2009 created millions of net new jobs are Vice President Joe Biden and the staff economists in the White House.
Yesterday, President Obama's chief economist announced that the plan had "created or saved" between 2.5 million and 3.6 million jobs and raised gross domestic product (GDP) by 2.7 percent to 3.2 percent through June 30.
Christina Romer went so far as to claim that the 3.5 million new jobs that she promised while the stimulus was being debated in Congress will arrive "two quarters earlier than anticipated." The official White House line is that the plan is working better than even they had hoped.
However:
Since February 2009 the U.S. economy has lost a net 2.35 million jobs. Using the White House "created or saved" measure means that even if there were only three million Americans left with jobs today, the White House could claim that everyone was saved by the stimulus, says the Wall Street Journal.
The White House also naturally insists that things would be much worse without the stimulus billions spent on the likes of Medicaid payments, high speed rail projects, unemployment benefits and windmills. President Obama said recently in Racine, Wisconsin, that the economy "would have been a lot worse" and the unemployment rate would have gone to "12 or 13, or 15 [percent]" if government hadn't spent all of that money.
This is called a counterfactual: a what would have happened scenario that can't be refuted. What we do know is what White House economists at the time said would happen if the stimulus didn't pass, says the Journal:
They said the unemployment rate would peak at 9 percent without the stimulus (there's your counterfactual) and that with the stimulus the rate would stay at 8 percent or below.
In other words, today there are 700,000 fewer jobs than Romer predicted we would have if we had done nothing at all.
If this is a job creation success, what does failure look like, asks the Journal?
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Bush Tax Cuts Account for MORE Revenue To Treasury
Little wonder the liberal Democrats want more taxes and not less. History is a great teacher if one will take the time to look and understand how our economy actually works. But to do that, the liberals would have to put aside their agenda which will not happen now or ever.
Tax cuts have always resulted in more money to the treasury and spurred the economy to grow. On the other hand, tax increases have always stifled growth as history has proven. Where ever it is tried, stagnation is the result.
Do liberal Democrats get this? Reality isn't necessary to implement the agenda of submission, only managed information is used to bring the population under the control of the superior intellects of liberal leaders.
hmmmm - John Kerry has a superior intellect? Can we be fooled that easily? I hope not.
THE BUSH TAX CUTS AND THE DEFICIT MYTH
Source: Brian Riedl, "The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth," Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2010.
President Obama and congressional Democrats are blaming their trillion-dollar budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Letting these tax cuts expire is their answer. Yet the data flatly contradict this "tax cuts caused the deficits" narrative.
Consider one of the most persistent myths, says Brian Riedl, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation: The Bush tax cuts wiped out last decade's budget surplus.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), has long blamed the tax cuts for having "taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see," however:
That $5.6 trillion surplus never existed; instead, it was a projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in January 2001 to cover the next decade.
It assumed that late-1990s economic growth and the stock market bubble (which had already peaked) would continue forever and generate record-high tax revenues.
It assumed no recessions, no terrorist attacks, no wars, no natural disasters and that all discretionary spending would fall to 1930s levels.
The projected $5.6 trillion surplus between 2002 and 2011 will more likely be a $6.1 trillion deficit through September 2011. So what was the cause of this dizzying, $11.7 trillion swing?
According to Riedl: Analysis of the CBO's 28 subsequent budget baseline updates since January 2001 reveal that the much-maligned Bush tax cuts, at $1.7 trillion, caused just 14 percent of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits (and that is according to a "static" analysis, excluding any revenues recovered from faster economic growth induced by the cuts).
The bulk of the swing resulted from economic and technical revisions (33 percent), other new spending (32 percent), net interest on the debt (12 percent), the 2009 stimulus (6 percent) and other tax cuts (3 percent).
Specifically, the tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 are responsible for just 4 percent of the swing.
If there were no Bush tax cuts, runaway spending and economic factors would have guaranteed more than $4 trillion in deficits over the decade and kept the budget in deficit every year except 2007, says Riedl.
Tax cuts have always resulted in more money to the treasury and spurred the economy to grow. On the other hand, tax increases have always stifled growth as history has proven. Where ever it is tried, stagnation is the result.
Do liberal Democrats get this? Reality isn't necessary to implement the agenda of submission, only managed information is used to bring the population under the control of the superior intellects of liberal leaders.
hmmmm - John Kerry has a superior intellect? Can we be fooled that easily? I hope not.
THE BUSH TAX CUTS AND THE DEFICIT MYTH
Source: Brian Riedl, "The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth," Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2010.
President Obama and congressional Democrats are blaming their trillion-dollar budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Letting these tax cuts expire is their answer. Yet the data flatly contradict this "tax cuts caused the deficits" narrative.
Consider one of the most persistent myths, says Brian Riedl, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation: The Bush tax cuts wiped out last decade's budget surplus.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), has long blamed the tax cuts for having "taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see," however:
That $5.6 trillion surplus never existed; instead, it was a projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in January 2001 to cover the next decade.
It assumed that late-1990s economic growth and the stock market bubble (which had already peaked) would continue forever and generate record-high tax revenues.
It assumed no recessions, no terrorist attacks, no wars, no natural disasters and that all discretionary spending would fall to 1930s levels.
The projected $5.6 trillion surplus between 2002 and 2011 will more likely be a $6.1 trillion deficit through September 2011. So what was the cause of this dizzying, $11.7 trillion swing?
According to Riedl: Analysis of the CBO's 28 subsequent budget baseline updates since January 2001 reveal that the much-maligned Bush tax cuts, at $1.7 trillion, caused just 14 percent of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits (and that is according to a "static" analysis, excluding any revenues recovered from faster economic growth induced by the cuts).
The bulk of the swing resulted from economic and technical revisions (33 percent), other new spending (32 percent), net interest on the debt (12 percent), the 2009 stimulus (6 percent) and other tax cuts (3 percent).
Specifically, the tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 are responsible for just 4 percent of the swing.
If there were no Bush tax cuts, runaway spending and economic factors would have guaranteed more than $4 trillion in deficits over the decade and kept the budget in deficit every year except 2007, says Riedl.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Health Care In Cuba is America's Future
Ask any liberal and they will have the answer for you, "It works in Cuba, why not here?" How many times have we heard this in the media and from our friends that sit in the front pew and swill the coolaide?
THAT FABULOUS CUBAN HEALTH CARE
Source: Bret Stephens, "Dr. Berwick and That Fabulous Cuban Health Care; The death march of progressive medicine," Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2010.
When the health care bill became law in March, Fidel Castro emerged from semiretirement to praise it as a "miracle." So it's a good time to check in on the state of the Cuban health care system. That's just what Laurie Garrett, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, does in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.
The system is in an advanced state of collapse. It is bankrupting the state and driving doctors out of the medical field and the country. Its ostensibly egalitarian nature disguises a radically inegalitarian reality, with a tiny number of well-appointed clinics catering to paying medical tourists and senior Party apparatchiks while most Cubans take their chances in filthy, under-resourced hospitals.
Consider the facts as laid out by Garrett:
There are 73,000 physicians licensed to practice in Cuba.
This allows Cuba to boast of having the best doctor-patient ratio in the world, with one doctor for every 170 people, as opposed to one for every 390 in the United States.
Yet reality belies the statistics:
Slightly more than half of all Cuban physicians work overseas; taxed by the Cuban state at a 66 percent rate, many of them wind up defecting.
Doctors who remain in the country earn about $25 a month. As a result, Garrett writes, they often take "jobs as taxi drivers or in hotels," where they can make better money. As for the quality of the doctors, she notes that very few of those who manage to reach the United States can gain accreditation here, partly because of the language barrier, partly because of the "stark differences" in medical training. Typically, they wind up working as nurses.
As for the quality of medical treatment in Cuba, Garrett reports that hospital patients must arrive with their own syringes, towels and bed sheets. Women avoid gynecological exams "because they fear infection from unhygienic equipment and practices." Rates of cervical cancer have doubled in the past 25 years as the use of Pap tests has fallen by 30 percent.
Sound inviting?
The truth is that socialism and related forms of command-and-control technocracy work as well in the health care market as they do in every other, says Stephens. Which is to say, not at all.
THAT FABULOUS CUBAN HEALTH CARE
Source: Bret Stephens, "Dr. Berwick and That Fabulous Cuban Health Care; The death march of progressive medicine," Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2010.
When the health care bill became law in March, Fidel Castro emerged from semiretirement to praise it as a "miracle." So it's a good time to check in on the state of the Cuban health care system. That's just what Laurie Garrett, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, does in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.
The system is in an advanced state of collapse. It is bankrupting the state and driving doctors out of the medical field and the country. Its ostensibly egalitarian nature disguises a radically inegalitarian reality, with a tiny number of well-appointed clinics catering to paying medical tourists and senior Party apparatchiks while most Cubans take their chances in filthy, under-resourced hospitals.
Consider the facts as laid out by Garrett:
There are 73,000 physicians licensed to practice in Cuba.
This allows Cuba to boast of having the best doctor-patient ratio in the world, with one doctor for every 170 people, as opposed to one for every 390 in the United States.
Yet reality belies the statistics:
Slightly more than half of all Cuban physicians work overseas; taxed by the Cuban state at a 66 percent rate, many of them wind up defecting.
Doctors who remain in the country earn about $25 a month. As a result, Garrett writes, they often take "jobs as taxi drivers or in hotels," where they can make better money. As for the quality of the doctors, she notes that very few of those who manage to reach the United States can gain accreditation here, partly because of the language barrier, partly because of the "stark differences" in medical training. Typically, they wind up working as nurses.
As for the quality of medical treatment in Cuba, Garrett reports that hospital patients must arrive with their own syringes, towels and bed sheets. Women avoid gynecological exams "because they fear infection from unhygienic equipment and practices." Rates of cervical cancer have doubled in the past 25 years as the use of Pap tests has fallen by 30 percent.
Sound inviting?
The truth is that socialism and related forms of command-and-control technocracy work as well in the health care market as they do in every other, says Stephens. Which is to say, not at all.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Trains Cost Millions for Taxpayers in Maintenance
What is it about a train that makes city officials go 'off the rails'? Here in Wisconsin it is the same thing, the state is broke but yet they are talking about a 'high speed train' from Milwaukee to Madison that travels at speeds about the same as cars on the interstate, which by the way, parallels the train tracks.
Oh, and by the way, the train stops at the airport so you have to take a cab from there to anywhere in the city. I wonder what that will cost you and I wonder how much you could save by driving your own car and be able to go anywhere at any time without paying for a cab?
It seems all the politicians see is the initial influx of cash but not the on-going cost of maintaining these monsters. In the end, it will cost the tax payers millions. Just what we all need, more taxes to support another worthless political boondoggle. And here is another item to consider, who exactly will ride the train rather that drive their cars? hmmmm Interesting enough, they don't know who will ride the train or why. They can only guess!
Madison is planning a trolley for this city as well even though rider ship on the city bus system is a bust and has to be supported every year with more and more money to keep it running. History has shown that where ever a trolley has been installed, it has failed to support itself. No matter, they say, it would so cool to have one even though it will only serve a small portion of the city. It will be so cool.
Why cause more pain for the tax payers? What is it about 'We are broke' that these people don't get? Who are these people?
WHY CITIES ARE BROKE OR, THERE IS SOMETHING TRAGIC ABOUT A TRAIN...
Source: Nick Gillespie, "Why Cities Are Broke or, There is Something Tragic About a Train...," Reason Magazine, July 8, 2010.
Cincinnati, a city that is down on its luck and its population, faces a $50 million deficit next year, but anxiously awaits signs that the feds will shovel some money their way to build a streetcar system in the Queen City, says Nick Gillespie is editor-in-chief of Reason.tv and Reason.com.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is scheduled to announce nearly $300 million in federal funding for streetcar, trolley and bus proposals nationwide, with Cincinnati being one of dozens of cities in competition for the grants.
Cincinnati, which still needs about $42 million in additional state or federal dollars to fund the streetcar plan's $128 million first phase, has applied for a $25 million "urban circulator" grant from the U.S. Transportation Department that would significantly close the project's funding gap.
The city has identified about $86 million for the project, including $64 million in city bonds that Mayor Mark Mallory has pledged will not be issued unless the city receives roughly the same amount in state and federal funds.
There is absolutely nothing that a streetcar system could possibly do to make Cincinnati a better place to live, says Gillespie. Meanwhile, the city is promising not to spend up to $86 million unless they find someone to match them in this foolishness, unless of course, they want to go ahead and start building it anyway.
Even if the full $128 million budget is not in place, city officials have said preliminary construction could begin this fall with relocation of utilities to clear the way for track installation for a streetcar system that will extend from Downtown's riverfront to the Uptown communities around the University of Cincinnati.
Oh, and by the way, the train stops at the airport so you have to take a cab from there to anywhere in the city. I wonder what that will cost you and I wonder how much you could save by driving your own car and be able to go anywhere at any time without paying for a cab?
It seems all the politicians see is the initial influx of cash but not the on-going cost of maintaining these monsters. In the end, it will cost the tax payers millions. Just what we all need, more taxes to support another worthless political boondoggle. And here is another item to consider, who exactly will ride the train rather that drive their cars? hmmmm Interesting enough, they don't know who will ride the train or why. They can only guess!
Madison is planning a trolley for this city as well even though rider ship on the city bus system is a bust and has to be supported every year with more and more money to keep it running. History has shown that where ever a trolley has been installed, it has failed to support itself. No matter, they say, it would so cool to have one even though it will only serve a small portion of the city. It will be so cool.
Why cause more pain for the tax payers? What is it about 'We are broke' that these people don't get? Who are these people?
WHY CITIES ARE BROKE OR, THERE IS SOMETHING TRAGIC ABOUT A TRAIN...
Source: Nick Gillespie, "Why Cities Are Broke or, There is Something Tragic About a Train...," Reason Magazine, July 8, 2010.
Cincinnati, a city that is down on its luck and its population, faces a $50 million deficit next year, but anxiously awaits signs that the feds will shovel some money their way to build a streetcar system in the Queen City, says Nick Gillespie is editor-in-chief of Reason.tv and Reason.com.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is scheduled to announce nearly $300 million in federal funding for streetcar, trolley and bus proposals nationwide, with Cincinnati being one of dozens of cities in competition for the grants.
Cincinnati, which still needs about $42 million in additional state or federal dollars to fund the streetcar plan's $128 million first phase, has applied for a $25 million "urban circulator" grant from the U.S. Transportation Department that would significantly close the project's funding gap.
The city has identified about $86 million for the project, including $64 million in city bonds that Mayor Mark Mallory has pledged will not be issued unless the city receives roughly the same amount in state and federal funds.
There is absolutely nothing that a streetcar system could possibly do to make Cincinnati a better place to live, says Gillespie. Meanwhile, the city is promising not to spend up to $86 million unless they find someone to match them in this foolishness, unless of course, they want to go ahead and start building it anyway.
Even if the full $128 million budget is not in place, city officials have said preliminary construction could begin this fall with relocation of utilities to clear the way for track installation for a streetcar system that will extend from Downtown's riverfront to the Uptown communities around the University of Cincinnati.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Energy Generation From Coal to Double by 2035
Little wonder why our 'Dear Leader' wants to destroy the coal industry. Remember what he said before the election of the "one' " My new rules for power generations from coal will necessarily make energy rates to skyrocket."
By do so he can cause industry to collapse and therefore American exceptionalism to diminish to brain dead socialism, Obama's true agenda. What a perfect way to bring America to her knees.
How is this possible to have our own president working to destroy our country?
Note: I had to delete the URL's list in the article as my system won't allow their existence - (I apologize for this)
Coal and Electricity Generation
by Carl from Chicago < on July 11th, 2010 (All posts by Carl from Chicago
*World Wide Growth In Coal*
Per the official US Energy Information Administration statistics (they have an excellent site, the link to this data is here , the use of coal for electricity generation will continue to grow over the next 25 years (their forecast goes through 2035). In 2007, the world generated 7.92 trillion kilowatt hours using coal, or 42% of global energy generation. In 2035, they predict that 15.02 trillion kilowatt hours of energy will be produced using coal, or 43% of global energy generation.
Thus in an ABSOLUTE sense power generating by the use of coal will increase by approximately NINETY PERCENT over the next 25 years (through 2035), and the total output of power generated by coal in 2035 will be approximately equal to EIGHTY PERCENT of power being generated from ALL sources today (coal will be 15.02 trillion kwh in 2035 vs. 18.77 in 2007, the year with the most recent statistics available).
The purpose of this background is to explain that the continued use of coal for the world as a whole will continue at the same approximate percentage that it provides today (about 42-43%) and that the absolute generation of power utilizing coal will almost double in the next 25 years (increases 90%).
Thus for all the talk of alternative energy, the reality, world-wide, is that coal is the largest share of generation and will continue to remain this way for the foreseeable future. So if you believe that we are moving to alternative energy as a whole, it isn’t true, and if you believe that coal is going away, if anything it is going to almost double in the next 25 years.
The reality is that everything that we make that is energy intensive won’t be made in the US – it will be made overseas (along with the jobs and tax revenues that come with this), and it will just be exported to us. It is the same net outcome for the planet as a whole, except that we won’t produce what we need and we will have to find some way to pay the other countries that provide it for us. And if there is an issue with rising temperatures, what we do in the US isn’t going to matter overall because we are not the largest part of the economy and huge investments in coal fired generation are occurring around the world despite our thoughts to the contrary.
*The **United States** and Coal*
For all of our talk about “renewable” generation, coal remains the largest component of US electricity generation. The United States has abundant reserves of coal and coal technologies are proven and cost efficient.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed new emissions guidelines that, if passed, will result in the shut down of many older coal plants that would require significant re-fitting. From the article: The rules will probably trigger the closing of the “smallest and dirtiest coal plants” when coupled with new limits expected from the EPA for mercury emissions from coal- fired generators, K. Whitney Stanco, a Washington-based analyst with Concept Capital, said in a research note to clients today before the regulations were announced.
The agency doesn’t know whether the regulations would result in shutting plants, McCarthy of the EPA said. The part of the quote that I find most howlingly funny is that the EPA doesn’t know if this new rule would result in the closure of older coal plants – the sad part is that this is probably true, because why would they care about the practical impact of a rule that they are considering? *Building a Coal Plant in**Illinois* The Chicago Tribune recently wrote an article about the Prairie State Energy Campus, a massive new 1600 MW facility being built in downstate Illinois, titled “Clean coal dream a costly nightmare
In the past I have taken journalists who write about energy to task for their misrepresentations and, while this isn’t a terrible article, the headline writer mis-represents the situation. The new plant being built was NEVER a “clean coal” plant as planted in the popular imagination; this plant was the last of the old-school coal plants with scrubbers. The plant will be one of the largest emitters of pollutants as now defined by the EPA just because it is large and will be run continuously (while many of the smaller coal plants will likely end up getting shut down, see above), since the citizens of Illinois seem to like their air conditioning and to run whatever industry remains in our state.
There simply is very little base load generation being built, anywhere, so once this plant is up it will run probably for the rest of our lifetimes.This plant is a “mine mouth” plant which means that the coal is mined locally and doesn’t have to cross the country to reach the site, which reduces operating costs. The plant also is linked to the nearby coal fields, so not only does it supply generating capacity, it is linked to its own fuel source should the price of coal increase in the future.
The cost of this plant has more than doubled since original estimates were made, to $4.4 billion dollars. The plant was proposed in 2001 but never-ending environmental protests and the non-value adding permitting and government process put it years behind schedule. In the mean time I can only imagine how many coal plants were put up in China and I have to believe that their cost / MW is a fraction of ours in the USA, even adjusted for the fact that this plant has modern scrubbers and many of the Chinese plants have little in the way of emissions controls (this is now changing, and it is likely that future clean coal technologies will come out of China since they are making it a priority and the costs to build a plant and the time lines are so much better than in the litigious USA).
*The Ultimate Outcome:*
Thus here are the conclusions based on the data above:
1) the world will continue to rely on coal for the largest portion of power generation.
2) the ABSOLUTE volume of power generated by goal will almost double in the next 25 years
3) building coal plants in the USA is exceedingly difficult, expensive and time consuming.
4) there is a lot of regulatory uncertainty about what the EPA is trying to do, and they don’t even bother considering the economic impacts of their actions.
5) the future decisions about how to provide base load power for the USA are going to be difficult and costly because coal is out and nuclear power is substantially delayed and non-economic; we are just relying on our existing resources until they run out and will then have to pick up the pieces.
6) these items will go with a power shift towards places that use low cost coal to run their economies vs those that choose to go with high cost sources; we will still use the same economic goods, but we will just have to buy them from someone else, similar to how we are hostage to those that provide us foreign oil today.
By do so he can cause industry to collapse and therefore American exceptionalism to diminish to brain dead socialism, Obama's true agenda. What a perfect way to bring America to her knees.
How is this possible to have our own president working to destroy our country?
Note: I had to delete the URL's list in the article as my system won't allow their existence - (I apologize for this)
Coal and Electricity Generation
by Carl from Chicago < on July 11th, 2010 (All posts by Carl from Chicago
*World Wide Growth In Coal*
Per the official US Energy Information Administration statistics (they have an excellent site, the link to this data is here , the use of coal for electricity generation will continue to grow over the next 25 years (their forecast goes through 2035). In 2007, the world generated 7.92 trillion kilowatt hours using coal, or 42% of global energy generation. In 2035, they predict that 15.02 trillion kilowatt hours of energy will be produced using coal, or 43% of global energy generation.
Thus in an ABSOLUTE sense power generating by the use of coal will increase by approximately NINETY PERCENT over the next 25 years (through 2035), and the total output of power generated by coal in 2035 will be approximately equal to EIGHTY PERCENT of power being generated from ALL sources today (coal will be 15.02 trillion kwh in 2035 vs. 18.77 in 2007, the year with the most recent statistics available).
The purpose of this background is to explain that the continued use of coal for the world as a whole will continue at the same approximate percentage that it provides today (about 42-43%) and that the absolute generation of power utilizing coal will almost double in the next 25 years (increases 90%).
Thus for all the talk of alternative energy, the reality, world-wide, is that coal is the largest share of generation and will continue to remain this way for the foreseeable future. So if you believe that we are moving to alternative energy as a whole, it isn’t true, and if you believe that coal is going away, if anything it is going to almost double in the next 25 years.
The reality is that everything that we make that is energy intensive won’t be made in the US – it will be made overseas (along with the jobs and tax revenues that come with this), and it will just be exported to us. It is the same net outcome for the planet as a whole, except that we won’t produce what we need and we will have to find some way to pay the other countries that provide it for us. And if there is an issue with rising temperatures, what we do in the US isn’t going to matter overall because we are not the largest part of the economy and huge investments in coal fired generation are occurring around the world despite our thoughts to the contrary.
*The **United States** and Coal*
For all of our talk about “renewable” generation, coal remains the largest component of US electricity generation. The United States has abundant reserves of coal and coal technologies are proven and cost efficient.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed new emissions guidelines that, if passed, will result in the shut down of many older coal plants that would require significant re-fitting. From the article: The rules will probably trigger the closing of the “smallest and dirtiest coal plants” when coupled with new limits expected from the EPA for mercury emissions from coal- fired generators, K. Whitney Stanco, a Washington-based analyst with Concept Capital, said in a research note to clients today before the regulations were announced.
The agency doesn’t know whether the regulations would result in shutting plants, McCarthy of the EPA said. The part of the quote that I find most howlingly funny is that the EPA doesn’t know if this new rule would result in the closure of older coal plants – the sad part is that this is probably true, because why would they care about the practical impact of a rule that they are considering? *Building a Coal Plant in**Illinois* The Chicago Tribune recently wrote an article about the Prairie State Energy Campus, a massive new 1600 MW facility being built in downstate Illinois, titled “Clean coal dream a costly nightmare
In the past I have taken journalists who write about energy to task for their misrepresentations and, while this isn’t a terrible article, the headline writer mis-represents the situation. The new plant being built was NEVER a “clean coal” plant as planted in the popular imagination; this plant was the last of the old-school coal plants with scrubbers. The plant will be one of the largest emitters of pollutants as now defined by the EPA just because it is large and will be run continuously (while many of the smaller coal plants will likely end up getting shut down, see above), since the citizens of Illinois seem to like their air conditioning and to run whatever industry remains in our state.
There simply is very little base load generation being built, anywhere, so once this plant is up it will run probably for the rest of our lifetimes.This plant is a “mine mouth” plant which means that the coal is mined locally and doesn’t have to cross the country to reach the site, which reduces operating costs. The plant also is linked to the nearby coal fields, so not only does it supply generating capacity, it is linked to its own fuel source should the price of coal increase in the future.
The cost of this plant has more than doubled since original estimates were made, to $4.4 billion dollars. The plant was proposed in 2001 but never-ending environmental protests and the non-value adding permitting and government process put it years behind schedule. In the mean time I can only imagine how many coal plants were put up in China and I have to believe that their cost / MW is a fraction of ours in the USA, even adjusted for the fact that this plant has modern scrubbers and many of the Chinese plants have little in the way of emissions controls (this is now changing, and it is likely that future clean coal technologies will come out of China since they are making it a priority and the costs to build a plant and the time lines are so much better than in the litigious USA).
*The Ultimate Outcome:*
Thus here are the conclusions based on the data above:
1) the world will continue to rely on coal for the largest portion of power generation.
2) the ABSOLUTE volume of power generated by goal will almost double in the next 25 years
3) building coal plants in the USA is exceedingly difficult, expensive and time consuming.
4) there is a lot of regulatory uncertainty about what the EPA is trying to do, and they don’t even bother considering the economic impacts of their actions.
5) the future decisions about how to provide base load power for the USA are going to be difficult and costly because coal is out and nuclear power is substantially delayed and non-economic; we are just relying on our existing resources until they run out and will then have to pick up the pieces.
6) these items will go with a power shift towards places that use low cost coal to run their economies vs those that choose to go with high cost sources; we will still use the same economic goods, but we will just have to buy them from someone else, similar to how we are hostage to those that provide us foreign oil today.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Obama's Agenda On Schedule : America In Decline
Big government, according to Obama and his liberal socialist friends, will bring America back from the brink of destruction. Really? For nearly two years now all we have seen is the American dream going away and in it's place is a socialist nightmare. This is not what our forefathers had in mind.
You decide what is the truth and what is absurd.
THE REAL TRAGEDY OF PERSISTENT UNEMPLOYMENT
Source: Mohamed A. El-Erian, "The Real Tragedy of Persistent Unemployment," Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2010.
June's employment report was disappointing. Though the national unemployment rate fell slightly -- it's now at 9.5 percent from 9.7 percent in May -- the report reveals deep structural problems that go beyond the number of those who remain without jobs, says Mohamed A. El-Erian, CEO and co-CIO of PIMCO, and author of "When Markets Collide."
For example: Almost half of unemployed Americans have been without a job for over six months.
The average duration of unemployment, which hit a post-World War II record many months ago, continues to go up; last month it clocked in at 35 weeks.
Unemployment is particularly severe among the young: A quarter of Americans between 16 and 19 years old in the labor market are without a job.
The longer it takes to understand and address these issues, the more likely the United States will get stuck in a protracted low growth/high unemployment trap. In addition to considering the welfare cost of substantial joblessness, policy makers should keep in mind the following four facts, says El-Erian:
Persistently high unemployment erodes the skills of any labor force, especially when joblessness is a big problem among the young; this reduces future productivity and growth potential.
A high rate of joblessness puts pressure on inadequate social safety nets like the unemployment benefit system; it also exacerbates the strain on government budgets already stretched at both the federal and state levels.
Stubbornly high unemployment makes those who are employed more cautious; by spending less, they aggravate the economic slowdown.
High unemployment has historically induced companies and countries to become more inwardly oriented; many firms have already moved to a "self-insurance" mode, including holding large cash balances rather than investing in equipment and hiring people.
Put all of this together, and you begin to get a sense of the importance of the employment reports. They are more than indicators of what has happened; they also shed light on what will likely happen going forward. The greater the persistence of high unemployment now, the higher the likelihood that it will drive future behavior of governments, companies and individuals, says El-Erian.
You decide what is the truth and what is absurd.
THE REAL TRAGEDY OF PERSISTENT UNEMPLOYMENT
Source: Mohamed A. El-Erian, "The Real Tragedy of Persistent Unemployment," Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2010.
June's employment report was disappointing. Though the national unemployment rate fell slightly -- it's now at 9.5 percent from 9.7 percent in May -- the report reveals deep structural problems that go beyond the number of those who remain without jobs, says Mohamed A. El-Erian, CEO and co-CIO of PIMCO, and author of "When Markets Collide."
For example: Almost half of unemployed Americans have been without a job for over six months.
The average duration of unemployment, which hit a post-World War II record many months ago, continues to go up; last month it clocked in at 35 weeks.
Unemployment is particularly severe among the young: A quarter of Americans between 16 and 19 years old in the labor market are without a job.
The longer it takes to understand and address these issues, the more likely the United States will get stuck in a protracted low growth/high unemployment trap. In addition to considering the welfare cost of substantial joblessness, policy makers should keep in mind the following four facts, says El-Erian:
Persistently high unemployment erodes the skills of any labor force, especially when joblessness is a big problem among the young; this reduces future productivity and growth potential.
A high rate of joblessness puts pressure on inadequate social safety nets like the unemployment benefit system; it also exacerbates the strain on government budgets already stretched at both the federal and state levels.
Stubbornly high unemployment makes those who are employed more cautious; by spending less, they aggravate the economic slowdown.
High unemployment has historically induced companies and countries to become more inwardly oriented; many firms have already moved to a "self-insurance" mode, including holding large cash balances rather than investing in equipment and hiring people.
Put all of this together, and you begin to get a sense of the importance of the employment reports. They are more than indicators of what has happened; they also shed light on what will likely happen going forward. The greater the persistence of high unemployment now, the higher the likelihood that it will drive future behavior of governments, companies and individuals, says El-Erian.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Marriage Conflict Always Interesting : Humor Is Good
Given the mess that our government is and the disastrous consequences that will result is we don't move fast enough and with enough resolve, which I believe we are heading in the right direction, it might be time to take a few minutes to relieve some of the stress in this noble fight to save our country.
Chill out for a moment with this chuckle about married couples in the constant struggle for supremacy. This is cute.
Husband Down
A husband and wife are shopping in their local Wal-Mart.
The husband picks up a case of Budweiser and puts it in their cart.
'What do you think you're doing?' asks the wife.
'They're on sale, only $10 for 24 cans he replies.
'Put them back, we can't afford them demands the wife, and so they carry on shopping.
A few aisles further on along the woman picks up a $20 jar of face cream and puts it in the basket.
What do you think you're doing?' asks the husband.
'It’s my face cream. It makes me look beautiful,' replies the wife.
Her husband retorts: 'So does 24 cans of Budweiser and it's half the price.'
On the PA system: 'Cleanup on aisle 25, we have a husband down.'
Chill out for a moment with this chuckle about married couples in the constant struggle for supremacy. This is cute.
Husband Down
A husband and wife are shopping in their local Wal-Mart.
The husband picks up a case of Budweiser and puts it in their cart.
'What do you think you're doing?' asks the wife.
'They're on sale, only $10 for 24 cans he replies.
'Put them back, we can't afford them demands the wife, and so they carry on shopping.
A few aisles further on along the woman picks up a $20 jar of face cream and puts it in the basket.
What do you think you're doing?' asks the husband.
'It’s my face cream. It makes me look beautiful,' replies the wife.
Her husband retorts: 'So does 24 cans of Budweiser and it's half the price.'
On the PA system: 'Cleanup on aisle 25, we have a husband down.'
Friday, July 09, 2010
Postal Service Rate Increase : Collapse Looming
How many people do you know that have stated "even if they, the postal service, double the rates, it would still be a bargain". Maybe those that have advocated this approach will have to take another look at where they stand. Collapse or total restructuring of the entire system is on it's way.
This is like the power generation industry, the more people save on electricity, the more they will have to pay as the facility stays the same size and the lines are still in place and so all the workers must stay to maintain the total infrastructure.
I believe there is a spot in the business of mail delivery for the postal service but it must be open to competition to find just where it is needed.
U.S. MAIL MONOPOLY WANTS RATE HIKE
Source: Tad DeHaven, "U.S. Mail Monopoly Wants Rate Hike," Cato Institute, July 6, 2010.
The long-term prospects for the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) monopoly are bleak, says Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst on federal and state budget issues for the Cato Institute.
To help stem the flow of red ink, the USPS intends to seek a rate increase. Only a government monopoly would try to raise prices when the demand for its services is plummeting. The rate increase will only push its already declining customer base to use cheaper, more efficient electronic alternatives, says DeHaven.
In contrast, countries around the world are continuing to liberalize their postal markets by embracing competition and private sector involvement. Britain is a good example:
In 1969, the British Post Office transformed from a government agency into a corporation, Royal Mail; however, the company's shares are owned by the government.
In 2006, Royal Mail's regulator removed its monopoly and opened British mail delivery to full competition, which the postal unions opposed.
According to the Daily Mail: The British government is now prepared to take the next step -- privatization. In doing so, the government is considering transferring a portion of Royal Mail's shares to its employees. Giving the employees ownership stakes would inhibit the unions' ability to extract concessions that would negatively affect the company's bottom line.
Like their counterparts in the United States, the British postal unions are a hindrance to effective and efficient postal management. With e-mail and other technologies undermining traditional mail, neutering the inflexibility caused by unions is paramount for mail operations here and abroad, says DeHaven.
This is like the power generation industry, the more people save on electricity, the more they will have to pay as the facility stays the same size and the lines are still in place and so all the workers must stay to maintain the total infrastructure.
I believe there is a spot in the business of mail delivery for the postal service but it must be open to competition to find just where it is needed.
U.S. MAIL MONOPOLY WANTS RATE HIKE
Source: Tad DeHaven, "U.S. Mail Monopoly Wants Rate Hike," Cato Institute, July 6, 2010.
The long-term prospects for the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) monopoly are bleak, says Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst on federal and state budget issues for the Cato Institute.
To help stem the flow of red ink, the USPS intends to seek a rate increase. Only a government monopoly would try to raise prices when the demand for its services is plummeting. The rate increase will only push its already declining customer base to use cheaper, more efficient electronic alternatives, says DeHaven.
In contrast, countries around the world are continuing to liberalize their postal markets by embracing competition and private sector involvement. Britain is a good example:
In 1969, the British Post Office transformed from a government agency into a corporation, Royal Mail; however, the company's shares are owned by the government.
In 2006, Royal Mail's regulator removed its monopoly and opened British mail delivery to full competition, which the postal unions opposed.
According to the Daily Mail: The British government is now prepared to take the next step -- privatization. In doing so, the government is considering transferring a portion of Royal Mail's shares to its employees. Giving the employees ownership stakes would inhibit the unions' ability to extract concessions that would negatively affect the company's bottom line.
Like their counterparts in the United States, the British postal unions are a hindrance to effective and efficient postal management. With e-mail and other technologies undermining traditional mail, neutering the inflexibility caused by unions is paramount for mail operations here and abroad, says DeHaven.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Wind Power Said A Boondoggle In Mass. : Environmental Disaster
This is the first part of a larger article on wind power from Wisconsin Energy Cooperative magazine, that targets the costs and (benefits?) of wind power - it's long in it's entirety but lays out what is happening in Massachusetts and around the country.
More to come.
Thar She Blows! Offshore wind: Green dream or white whale?
David Hoopman WEC
For 10 years, America’s first offshore wind energy project has navigated the perilous regulatory channels of Boston and the Potomac, shadowed and stalked by some whom, it can fairly be said, would otherwise be champions of renewable energy.
Cape Wind cleared federal regulatory hurdles this spring. It will spread 130 wind turbines, each 440 feet tall, across 25 square miles of Nantucket Sound between Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard. Federal documents issued April 28, when U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar signed off on the project, say the array is expected to yield an average output of 182 megawatts, about three-fourths of the electrical demand from Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket Island.
Frustrated in the decade-long quest to sink a harpoon into the project are the Kennedy family, the late Walter Cronkite, and former U.S. Senator John Warner (R–VA, retired 2009), owners of homes and vacation properties in sight of the planned wind farm. At press time, at least nine potential plaintiffs were contemplating whether to take their shot in court, eyeing allegations that the project and its regulatory approvals violate the Endangered Species Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and other federal environmental laws.
Groups that said they might file lawsuits included local government and fishing clubs; two Wampanoag Indian tribes; the Animal Welfare Institute; Californians for Renewable Energy; and the Oceans Public Trust Initiative, affiliated with the Earth Island Institute.
Announcing his April decision to let the project proceed, Salazar said, “The need to preserve the environmental resources and rich cultural heritage of Nantucket Sound must be weighed in the balance with the importance of developing new renewable energy sources and strengthening our nation’s energy security while battling climate change and creating jobs.”
But the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, a center of relentless opposition since the beginning, dismisses talk of environmental improvements. The alliance cites at least two factors: fossil-fueled generation running constantly as backup for when the wind stops blowing and the existing system of limits capping power-plant emissions “in which neither Cape Wind nor any other new generating source would reduce emissions below the cap in the long run.”
More to come.
Thar She Blows! Offshore wind: Green dream or white whale?
David Hoopman WEC
For 10 years, America’s first offshore wind energy project has navigated the perilous regulatory channels of Boston and the Potomac, shadowed and stalked by some whom, it can fairly be said, would otherwise be champions of renewable energy.
Cape Wind cleared federal regulatory hurdles this spring. It will spread 130 wind turbines, each 440 feet tall, across 25 square miles of Nantucket Sound between Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard. Federal documents issued April 28, when U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar signed off on the project, say the array is expected to yield an average output of 182 megawatts, about three-fourths of the electrical demand from Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket Island.
Frustrated in the decade-long quest to sink a harpoon into the project are the Kennedy family, the late Walter Cronkite, and former U.S. Senator John Warner (R–VA, retired 2009), owners of homes and vacation properties in sight of the planned wind farm. At press time, at least nine potential plaintiffs were contemplating whether to take their shot in court, eyeing allegations that the project and its regulatory approvals violate the Endangered Species Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and other federal environmental laws.
Groups that said they might file lawsuits included local government and fishing clubs; two Wampanoag Indian tribes; the Animal Welfare Institute; Californians for Renewable Energy; and the Oceans Public Trust Initiative, affiliated with the Earth Island Institute.
Announcing his April decision to let the project proceed, Salazar said, “The need to preserve the environmental resources and rich cultural heritage of Nantucket Sound must be weighed in the balance with the importance of developing new renewable energy sources and strengthening our nation’s energy security while battling climate change and creating jobs.”
But the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, a center of relentless opposition since the beginning, dismisses talk of environmental improvements. The alliance cites at least two factors: fossil-fueled generation running constantly as backup for when the wind stops blowing and the existing system of limits capping power-plant emissions “in which neither Cape Wind nor any other new generating source would reduce emissions below the cap in the long run.”
Liberal Democrats In Bed with Big Lobbyists
After reading this, think about how the health care bill got written and just who wrote it. The whole thing was written behind closed doors with no input from Republicans or Conservatives. None!!
So just who is being controlled by lobbyists the most, and just who has all the money to hand out to special interests - yep - liberal Democrats.
A PLAGUE OF LOBBYISTS
Source: Ronald Bailey, "A plague of lobbyists: you get what you pay for," Reason Magazine, July 2010.
As Congress debated health care reform, the lobbying industry's representatives invaded Capitol Hill. Some got into the game to protect their interests against redistribution while others were digging for special subsidies, tax breaks and regulations at the expense of their competitors, says Ronald Bailey, a science correspondent for Reason Magazine.
The nonprofit Center for Public Integrity reported in March that an analysis of Senate lobbying disclosure forms shows that more than 1,750 companies and organizations hired about 4,525 lobbyists -- eight for each member of Congress -- to influence health reform bills in 2009.
Lobbyists for unions opposed taxes on gold-plated health insurance plans;
lobbyists for doctors opposed cuts in Medicare reimbursements;
a lobbyist for Dunkin Donuts opposed a soda tax to pay for health care reform;
and a Cigar Association lobbyist fought a tobacco tax.
The Center for Public Integrity noted that 2009 was a boom year for influence peddling overall, with business and advocacy groups shelling out $3.47 billion for lobbyists. Although it is hard to quantify the exact amount spent on trying to influence health care legislation, the groups lobbying the issue spent about $1.2 billion, says Bailey.
So just who is being controlled by lobbyists the most, and just who has all the money to hand out to special interests - yep - liberal Democrats.
A PLAGUE OF LOBBYISTS
Source: Ronald Bailey, "A plague of lobbyists: you get what you pay for," Reason Magazine, July 2010.
As Congress debated health care reform, the lobbying industry's representatives invaded Capitol Hill. Some got into the game to protect their interests against redistribution while others were digging for special subsidies, tax breaks and regulations at the expense of their competitors, says Ronald Bailey, a science correspondent for Reason Magazine.
The nonprofit Center for Public Integrity reported in March that an analysis of Senate lobbying disclosure forms shows that more than 1,750 companies and organizations hired about 4,525 lobbyists -- eight for each member of Congress -- to influence health reform bills in 2009.
Lobbyists for unions opposed taxes on gold-plated health insurance plans;
lobbyists for doctors opposed cuts in Medicare reimbursements;
a lobbyist for Dunkin Donuts opposed a soda tax to pay for health care reform;
and a Cigar Association lobbyist fought a tobacco tax.
The Center for Public Integrity noted that 2009 was a boom year for influence peddling overall, with business and advocacy groups shelling out $3.47 billion for lobbyists. Although it is hard to quantify the exact amount spent on trying to influence health care legislation, the groups lobbying the issue spent about $1.2 billion, says Bailey.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
McChrystal Knew What He Was Doing : He Is No Fool
This story tells us some of the things that we all thought to be true about McChrystal even before he resigned his commission. The man is not stupid even though he is a liberal, so we are told. Truly a paradox.
In any even, he had to know what he was doing when he talked to a left wing ideologue news person. This is a much over looked story and will come full circle when McChrystal writes his book.
(Note : I did not verify who Paul Hollrah is but I agree with his assumptions - The Slickster!)
The General and the Community Organizer
by Paul R. Hollrah
Channel-surfing from ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN through MSNBC and Fox News, the inside-the-beltway pundits had a field day trying to get inside the heads of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, General Stanley McChrystal, and McChrystals top aides. The one thing common to all of the analyses, by the most famous and highly-paid talking heads inthe Western World, was that they are all wrong dead wrong. What is certain is that they all owe General McChrystal and his senior aides an apology for assuming that they are lame-brained numbskulls.
The facts of the McChrystal case are not in dispute. General McChrystal and his senior officers allowed a reporter for Rolling Stone Magazine, Michael Hastings, to have almost unprecedented access during an extended stay in Paris. The extended stay was due, in part, to an excess of atmospheric ash from Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano, keeping the McChrystal party grounded fordays.
In an interview with CNN, Hastings reported that he had a tape recorder in his hand most of the time and that McChrystal was very aware that his comments would find their way into print. Hesaid, McChrystal and his people set no ground rules for their conversations, although they did ask that some parts of their conversations were off the record. Hastings subsequently published a lengthy profile of General McChrystal on June 22, titled, TheRunaway General.
As Hastings wrote in his profile, McChrystal thought that Obama looked uncomfortable and intimidated by the roomful of military brass during their first meeting. Of their second meeting, an advisor to McChrystal quoted the general as saying that it was a 10-minute photo op. He went on to say, Obama clearly didn't know anything about (McChrystal), who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his f_ _ _ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.
As General McChrystal flew from Afghanistan to Washington to face Obama in the Oval Office, the almost unanimous opinion of the talking heads was that the comments made by McChrystal and his staff were off the cuff and inadvertent. But to believe that is to totally ignore who these men are. General McChrystal and his top officers are not simple-minded, knuckle-dragging brutes. To the contrary, they are intelligent thoughtful, highly educated, patriots…graduates of West Point and other fine univeersities…who are dedicated to duty, honor, and country. To think that such men would be so careless as to speak unflatteringly of Obama, Biden, and other top administration figures, in the presence of a reporter for a notoriously left wing publication, defies logic…at the very least.
To thinnk that men whoare trained to be careful and deliberate in everything they do, could do something so careless and so unguarded is simply beyond comprehension. I would argue that McChrystal and his aides knew exactly what they were doing. From the day that he became the handpicked spear carrier for Obama unique brand of warfare… playing at being Commander in Chief while playing to his far left constituency… McCChrystal life had been one of constant frustration.
After telling Obama exactly how many troops he needed to carry out his mission, Obama dithered for months before deciding to give him just half the troops he requested. McChrystal could not have been happy about that. The Obama team insisted on new Rules of Engagement designed to reduce collateral damage (civilian casualties). Obama's ROE required that U.S. troops must be able to see the enemy with weapon in hand before they were allowed to return fire.
One video tape circulated on the Internet showed a platoon of Marines pinned down by enemy sniper fire. But since the enemy was firing from some distance behind the open window of a building, the Marines could not actually see the weapon being fired. Although they were taking deadly fire, they were prohibited by the ROE from putting small arms fire or an RPG through the window opening. Under Obama politically correct ROE, our soldiers andMarines were required to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. McChrystal could not have been happy about that.
A strict new interrogation policy, dictated by Attorney General Eric Holder, required that prisoners must be delivered to an Interrogation Center within twenty-four hours of being captured or be released. A great deal of actionable intelligence was lost as a result and battle-hardened enemy fighters were returned to the field to kill Americans. McChrystal must have found that to be incomprehensible.
But the greatest insult to our troops in the field, and to the officers who lead them, may be a new battlefield medal designed by the Obama team. It is called the Courageous Restraint Medal and is awarded to soldiers and Marines who demonstrate uncommon restraint in combat by not firing their weapons even when they feel threatened by the enemy. Would we be surprised to learn that the preponderance of these medals were awarded posthumously? McChrystal must have found that to be an insanity.
I suggest that, having his best military judgments subjected to the White House political sieve for nearly a year and a half, McChrystal decided that he had enough. And when he announced to his senior staff that he was prepared to retire they decided to push back… to make the most of a bad situation.
It was clear that, if McChrystal were to simply take off his uniform and walk away, his retirement would be page-twenty news for a day or two before the mainstream media and the American people forgot all about him. They had to make the most of his retirement because it provided a one-time opportunity to show the American people, as well as our enemies and our allies, that the man who claims the title ofCommander in Chief of the U.S. military does not command the respect of our men and women in uniform.
To make the most of thatopportunity they had to choose their messenger very carefully. They knew that, by openly showing their disrespect for Obamain front of just any newsman, they may not attract the attention they desired. Like any astute observer of the MSM, they knew that most reporters would turn on their own mothers if it meant a good story.
But they could not take a chance that a mainstreammedia reporter might suffer a rare pang of conscience when confronted with the prospect of ruining the careers of some of the most senior officers in the War on Terror. They had to fix the odds as much as possible in their favor so they chose to use Michael Hastings and Rolling Stone Magazine.
During the long hours that General McChrystal was in the air between Kabul and Washington, Obama knew that he had just two choices…both bad. He could declare McChrystaal to be an irreplaceable asset in the war effort, give him a public reprimand, and send him back to Kabul. Or he could fire McChrystal, sending a clear message that, at least in his own mind, he was the Commander in Chief.
In the former case, he was certain to appear weak and ineffectual… a man not totally in charge. In the latter case, he might at least win a few rave reviews from the Kool-Ade drinkers in the mainstream media. He chose the latter of the two options. But what is now lost in all of the hand-wringing and speculation is the fact that McChrystal and his people have succeeded in doing exactly what they set out to do. They wanted to plant the seed in the minds of the American people that Obama is not up to the task of being Commander in Chief and that he does not command the respect of the men and women of the uniformed services from the newest Private E-1 up to the top four-star generals and admirals.
That seed is now firmly planted and it cannot be unplanted. From this day forward, no one will have to tell the American people that Stanley McChrystal is a true warrior, a man's man, and that Barack Obama is nothing more than a…Community Organizer. Well done, General! MY WORDS - CAN'T WAIT FOR THE BOOK. IT WILL BE A BEST SELLER!!!
In any even, he had to know what he was doing when he talked to a left wing ideologue news person. This is a much over looked story and will come full circle when McChrystal writes his book.
(Note : I did not verify who Paul Hollrah is but I agree with his assumptions - The Slickster!)
The General and the Community Organizer
by Paul R. Hollrah
Channel-surfing from ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN through MSNBC and Fox News, the inside-the-beltway pundits had a field day trying to get inside the heads of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, General Stanley McChrystal, and McChrystals top aides. The one thing common to all of the analyses, by the most famous and highly-paid talking heads inthe Western World, was that they are all wrong dead wrong. What is certain is that they all owe General McChrystal and his senior aides an apology for assuming that they are lame-brained numbskulls.
The facts of the McChrystal case are not in dispute. General McChrystal and his senior officers allowed a reporter for Rolling Stone Magazine, Michael Hastings, to have almost unprecedented access during an extended stay in Paris. The extended stay was due, in part, to an excess of atmospheric ash from Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano, keeping the McChrystal party grounded fordays.
In an interview with CNN, Hastings reported that he had a tape recorder in his hand most of the time and that McChrystal was very aware that his comments would find their way into print. Hesaid, McChrystal and his people set no ground rules for their conversations, although they did ask that some parts of their conversations were off the record. Hastings subsequently published a lengthy profile of General McChrystal on June 22, titled, TheRunaway General.
As Hastings wrote in his profile, McChrystal thought that Obama looked uncomfortable and intimidated by the roomful of military brass during their first meeting. Of their second meeting, an advisor to McChrystal quoted the general as saying that it was a 10-minute photo op. He went on to say, Obama clearly didn't know anything about (McChrystal), who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his f_ _ _ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.
As General McChrystal flew from Afghanistan to Washington to face Obama in the Oval Office, the almost unanimous opinion of the talking heads was that the comments made by McChrystal and his staff were off the cuff and inadvertent. But to believe that is to totally ignore who these men are. General McChrystal and his top officers are not simple-minded, knuckle-dragging brutes. To the contrary, they are intelligent thoughtful, highly educated, patriots…graduates of West Point and other fine univeersities…who are dedicated to duty, honor, and country. To think that such men would be so careless as to speak unflatteringly of Obama, Biden, and other top administration figures, in the presence of a reporter for a notoriously left wing publication, defies logic…at the very least.
To thinnk that men whoare trained to be careful and deliberate in everything they do, could do something so careless and so unguarded is simply beyond comprehension. I would argue that McChrystal and his aides knew exactly what they were doing. From the day that he became the handpicked spear carrier for Obama unique brand of warfare… playing at being Commander in Chief while playing to his far left constituency… McCChrystal life had been one of constant frustration.
After telling Obama exactly how many troops he needed to carry out his mission, Obama dithered for months before deciding to give him just half the troops he requested. McChrystal could not have been happy about that. The Obama team insisted on new Rules of Engagement designed to reduce collateral damage (civilian casualties). Obama's ROE required that U.S. troops must be able to see the enemy with weapon in hand before they were allowed to return fire.
One video tape circulated on the Internet showed a platoon of Marines pinned down by enemy sniper fire. But since the enemy was firing from some distance behind the open window of a building, the Marines could not actually see the weapon being fired. Although they were taking deadly fire, they were prohibited by the ROE from putting small arms fire or an RPG through the window opening. Under Obama politically correct ROE, our soldiers andMarines were required to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. McChrystal could not have been happy about that.
A strict new interrogation policy, dictated by Attorney General Eric Holder, required that prisoners must be delivered to an Interrogation Center within twenty-four hours of being captured or be released. A great deal of actionable intelligence was lost as a result and battle-hardened enemy fighters were returned to the field to kill Americans. McChrystal must have found that to be incomprehensible.
But the greatest insult to our troops in the field, and to the officers who lead them, may be a new battlefield medal designed by the Obama team. It is called the Courageous Restraint Medal and is awarded to soldiers and Marines who demonstrate uncommon restraint in combat by not firing their weapons even when they feel threatened by the enemy. Would we be surprised to learn that the preponderance of these medals were awarded posthumously? McChrystal must have found that to be an insanity.
I suggest that, having his best military judgments subjected to the White House political sieve for nearly a year and a half, McChrystal decided that he had enough. And when he announced to his senior staff that he was prepared to retire they decided to push back… to make the most of a bad situation.
It was clear that, if McChrystal were to simply take off his uniform and walk away, his retirement would be page-twenty news for a day or two before the mainstream media and the American people forgot all about him. They had to make the most of his retirement because it provided a one-time opportunity to show the American people, as well as our enemies and our allies, that the man who claims the title ofCommander in Chief of the U.S. military does not command the respect of our men and women in uniform.
To make the most of thatopportunity they had to choose their messenger very carefully. They knew that, by openly showing their disrespect for Obamain front of just any newsman, they may not attract the attention they desired. Like any astute observer of the MSM, they knew that most reporters would turn on their own mothers if it meant a good story.
But they could not take a chance that a mainstreammedia reporter might suffer a rare pang of conscience when confronted with the prospect of ruining the careers of some of the most senior officers in the War on Terror. They had to fix the odds as much as possible in their favor so they chose to use Michael Hastings and Rolling Stone Magazine.
During the long hours that General McChrystal was in the air between Kabul and Washington, Obama knew that he had just two choices…both bad. He could declare McChrystaal to be an irreplaceable asset in the war effort, give him a public reprimand, and send him back to Kabul. Or he could fire McChrystal, sending a clear message that, at least in his own mind, he was the Commander in Chief.
In the former case, he was certain to appear weak and ineffectual… a man not totally in charge. In the latter case, he might at least win a few rave reviews from the Kool-Ade drinkers in the mainstream media. He chose the latter of the two options. But what is now lost in all of the hand-wringing and speculation is the fact that McChrystal and his people have succeeded in doing exactly what they set out to do. They wanted to plant the seed in the minds of the American people that Obama is not up to the task of being Commander in Chief and that he does not command the respect of the men and women of the uniformed services from the newest Private E-1 up to the top four-star generals and admirals.
That seed is now firmly planted and it cannot be unplanted. From this day forward, no one will have to tell the American people that Stanley McChrystal is a true warrior, a man's man, and that Barack Obama is nothing more than a…Community Organizer. Well done, General! MY WORDS - CAN'T WAIT FOR THE BOOK. IT WILL BE A BEST SELLER!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
