Sunday, June 30, 2013

Muppets Educating Kids On Gay Marriage : Just Muppets?

I think this is amazing in that that the artist Hunter believes this is just what two and three year olds need to round out their education every morning glued to the TV.

And what might be even more ridiculous is that Hunter says the kids know they are just puppets and not real people.

Has insanity actually become a way of life for these people?

Bert & Ernie Celebrate Gay Marriage
Todd Starnes | Jun 28, 2013

The New Yorker marked the Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act with a cover painting of two beloved Sesame Street characters getting unusually affectionate.
Next week’s cover is a painting of Bert and Ernie cuddling on a couch while watching the nine Supreme Court justices on television. The artwork is titled, “Moment of Joy.”
“It’s amazing to witness how attitudes on gay rights have evolved in my lifetime,” artist Jack Hunter, the artist told The New Yorker. The magazine said Hunter submitted the unsolicited artwork via Tumblr.
“This is great for our kids, a moment we can all celebrate,” he told the magazine.
In 2011 the Sesame Workshop addressed questions about the sexual orientation of Bert and Ernie in a Facebook posting.
“Bert and Ernie are best friends,” the statement read. “They were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves. Even though they are identified as male characters and possess many human traits and characteristics (as most Sesame Street Muppets™ do), they remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation.”
So that settles that.
I always thought the point of Sesame Street was to teach kids to get along — not to get it on.
And Lord only knows who Elmo is tickling.

Saturday, June 29, 2013

Obama's Advisor : Power Bhind the Throne

[]Did you ever wonder who the real power is in the White House? Wonder no longer. She is the face of the progressive socialist liberal Democrats that have driven country into the domestic and foreign ditch.

Is it her fault or Mr Obamas or the Democrat party's fault? No, it's those that voted for them the first time, and the ignorant and shameless that voted for them the second time.

Why anyone vote for people that hate our country and our way of life?

Progressive Environomentalists Attack Coal : Power & control

The problem that I have with this attack on coal is that it's driven by people that want to control outcomes, not on actual fact. Even the insane on the environmental left admit their computer models are wrong and need to be reformed.

The scientific fact that the green house gases that once were proclaimed to signal the end of all life on the planet if we don't reduce them right now, are found to be smoke and mirrors, and yet the enviros refuse to admit past proclamations were fiction. Misinformation and out right lies.

The mentally ill left environmentalists refuse also to admit that there hasn't been any warming in the last 15 years and that reducing carbon emission has really has nothing to do with actually stopping the fantasy of warming, and the fabrication of green house gas being release into the atmosphere could stop such warming was just a scare tactic.

Green house gas destroying the planet is a lobbing effect to gain control and get rich at the same time. Need more information, Al Gore.

The Coal Train Chugs Along
Source: Robert Bryce, "The Coal Train Chugs Along," National Review, June 24, 2013.
June 28, 2013

Even without more regulations from the White House or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United States continues to lead the world in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, according to BP's latest Statistical Review of World Energy. And while the United States may be cutting its coal use (and, therefore, its carbon dioxide emissions), the rest of the world continues to binge on coal, says Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
  • Last year, the United States reduced its emissions by 3.9 percent.
  • That reduction was larger than that of any other major industrialized country.
  • In contrast, China's carbon dioxide output soared by 6 percent and India's by 6.9 percent, while Brazil's rose by 2.5 percent and Mexico's by 4.3 percent.
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are falling largely because of a huge drop in coal consumption, which was down a whopping 11.9 percent in 2012. Domestic coal use is plummeting for several reasons. Among them are increasing regulatory burdens and the Obama administration's threat of new regulations specifically on carbon dioxide emissions.

The biggest factor, though, in America's success in cutting emissions has been the shale gale.
  • Domestic natural gas production was up 4.7 percent last year, to a record 65.7 billion cubic feet per day.
  • That increase in production has led to cheaper natural gas, and that cheap gas is displacing coal at the power plant.
The shale gale -- and the resulting drop in domestic carbon dioxide emissions -- is a remarkable story. Thanks to market forces, not government regulation, the United States is reducing its emissions faster than Europe is, even though the European Union has imposed myriad regulations aimed at cutting them. Indeed, last year carbon dioxide emissions rose by 1.3 percent in Germany, the European Union's largest economy.

While American utilities are switching from coal to gas, electricity generators around the world are swarming to the coal market. Global coal use will continue to rise because global demand for electricity continues to rise, and that demand is being met largely with coal.

The fundamental problem with Obama's approach to carbon dioxide emissions is the idea that the United States can solve the problem. No matter what the United States does, emissions will continue to soar, because so many people in the developing world want to come out of the dark and into the bright lights of modernity.

Animal Explains How to Beat the Heat

Well we haven't seen the heat like we have in the past, but this photo shows just bad it has been in the past.  Yikes!

Friday, June 28, 2013

Automobile Innovation Stalls Under the Assult of Regulation : A Big Gov Weapon for Control?

Innovation stalls as our government becomes larger and larger and more inept and uncontrollable. Regulation, as the tool of the bureaucrat to remain in power, has proven to be a weapon used to suppress rather than enhance our society.

Regulation Inhibits Innovation in Cars
Source: Dan Carney, "10 Car Options the Law Won't Let You Have," Popular Mechanics, June 19, 2013.

June 27, 2013

It should come as no surprise that technology is transforming cars much faster than stodgy government rules can adjust, says Popular Mechanics.

As the pace of innovation accelerates, the gap between invention and regulation widens, making it unclear whether some of the coolest new automotive tech will actually be allowed in American cars. These clever car systems, unfortunately, are having a hard time getting approval in the United States.
  • Dynamic High Beams: New headlights use arrays of LEDs that can be programmed to pinpoint where light goes. When another car approaches, headlight arrays dim only the specific LEDs that shine into the oncoming lane. These systems let drivers enjoy the benefits of bright illumination without blinding the oncoming driver. Currently, though, the federal vehicle safety code permits only one kind of low beam.
  • Dynamic Light Spot: Mercedes has a lighting technology that identifies pedestrians on the shoulder or sidewalk via an infrared sensor and shines a light on them. But the option is not available in the United States for the same reason we can't have dynamic high beams -- federal safety code.
  • Strobe Brake Lights: Mercedes-Benz sells cars in Europe that are equipped with brake lights that flash quickly in response to hard brake pressure. The idea is to warn following drivers of a sudden stop from cars ahead. But U.S. government regulators say brake lights are allowed to do only one thing: glow more brightly than the taillights.
  • Dual-View Front Video Display: Mercedes-Benz Splitview system lets the central display screen on the dashboard show navigation, infotainment or other typical information for the driver while simultaneously showing a movie or other entertainment for the front-seat passenger. In some cases, technology might pass muster in Washington but fail in the statehouse. That's the case with the Mercedes-Benz Splitview system.
  • Aspherical Mirrors: On an aspherical mirror, the main part of the mirror surface is flat, but it curves away toward the outer edge to show all the space in your blind spot. These helpful features remain illegal here because of bureaucratic foot-dragging in Washington. A 2007 law required the Department of Transportation to revise the federal vehicle code to require a larger field of view in the mirror by the end of 2012, but that new rule (which could permit aspherical mirrors) still hasn't arrived.

ObamaCare Crushes Job Creation : Business Looks to Technology

ObamaCare will drive many small business out of business or greatly reduce their production and productivity. Perhaps the worst part of ObamaCare will be small business, and many large organizations, will find ways to compete in the market place and increase productivity with fewer workers. New technologies will play an important role here allowing businesses to replace workers with machines.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

What this means is the jobs that are lost will be gone for ever from the established business, and for all of the new business that want to start up in such a corrosive atmosphere as we have now, will do so with as few people as possible.

The problem here is easy to see but will be extremely hard to solve : the number of unemployed will continue to increase but the number of available jobs will decrease. Now, what to do we do with all of the unemployed as resources become scarce?

Small Business Owners Fear the Affordable Care Act
Source: Dan Mangan, "Will Obamacare Hurt Jobs? It's Already Happening, Poll Finds," CNBC News, June 19, 2013.
June 27, 2013

Small business owners' fear of the effect of the new health care reform law on their bottom line is prompting many to hold off on hiring and even to shed jobs in some cases, according to a recent poll, says CNBC News.
  • The poll was taken by 603 owners whose businesses have under $20 million in annual sales.
  • Forty-one percent of the businesses surveyed have frozen hiring because of the health care law known as ObamaCare.
  • Almost one-fifth (19 percent) answered "yes" when asked if they had "reduced the number of employees you have in your business as a specific result of the Affordable Care Act."
  • Another 38 percent of the small business owners said they "have pulled back on their plans to grow their business" because of ObamaCare.
Under ObamaCare, nearly all companies with 50 or more full-time employees will have to either offer health coverage or face a fine of $2,000 per full-timer after the first 30 workers. Just 9 percent of the small employers surveyed agreed that ObamaCare would be "good for your business," while another 39 percent saw "no impact."
The prevalent pessimism tracks other answers in the poll, which showed that:
  • Fifty-five percent of small business owners believe that the health reform law will lead to higher health care costs. By contrast, about 5 percent said the law would lead to lower costs.
  • And more than half (52 percent) said they expected a reduction in the quality of health care under ObamaCare, while just 13 percent expected an improvement.
In addition to restricting hiring or cutting jobs, small companies are considering other ways to mitigate the expected financial fallout. Twenty-four percent are weighing whether to drop insurance coverage, while 18 percent have "reduced the hours of employees to part-time" in anticipation of ObamaCare's effects, the poll found.

ObamaCare 'Death Panels' In October 2013? : Wrong, Already Here!

Who knew? Sarah Palin is right, again, the death panel is a matter of fact. She said this years ago and was vilified for it as an idiot by the progressive socialist liberal media and nearly all liberal Democrats.

WOW, I wonder who the idiots are now? Well, really, we always knew who the idiots are and were from the beginning. Democrats! Why is this so hard to understand? Does it matter that our entire country is becoming Detroit under the direction of progressive Democrats?

Should it matter that our loved ones can be sentenced to death by a panel in Washington whose members are above the law? Who voted for death panels? Why would someone vote for this might be the bigger question.

Independent Payment Advisory Board: The Death Panel
Source: David Rivkin and Elizabeth Foley, "An ObamaCare Board Answerable to No One," Wall Street Journal, June 19, 2013.
June 26, 2013

Signs of ObamaCare's failings mount daily, including soaring insurance costs, looming provider shortages and inadequate insurance exchanges. Yet the law's most disturbing feature may be the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). The IPAB, sometimes called a "death panel," threatens both the Medicare program and the Constitution's separation of powers, say David Rivkin, who served in the Justice Department under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and Elizabeth Foley, a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University.

The board, which will control more than  half of a trillion dollars of federal spending annually, is directed to "develop detailed and specific proposals related to the Medicare program," including proposals cutting Medicare spending below a statutorily prescribed level. In addition, the board is encouraged to make rules "related to" Medicare.

The ObamaCare law also stipulates that there "shall be no administrative or judicial review" of the board's decisions. Its members will be nearly untouchable, too. They will be presidentially nominated and Senate-confirmed, but after that they can only be fired for "neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."
  • Once the board acts, its decisions can be overruled only by Congress, but only through unprecedented and constitutionally dubious legislative procedures like: restricted debate, short deadlines for actions by congressional committees and other steps of the process, and super-majoritarian voting requirements.
  • The law allows Congress to kill the board only by a three-fifths supermajority, and only by a vote that takes place in 2017 between January 1 and August 15. If the board fails to implement cuts, all of its powers are to be exercised by the Health and Human Services secretary.
The IPAB's godlike powers are not accidental. Its goal, conspicuously proclaimed by the Obama administration, is to control Medicare spending in ways that are insulated from the political process.
  • This wholesale transfer of power is at odds with the Constitution's separation-of-powers architecture that protects individual liberty by preventing an undue aggregation of government power in a single entity.
  • The system by which the panel operates completely removes any type of accountability.
An immediate legal challenge by Congress might be possible, but also faces standing difficulties. Unless and until courts rule on IPAB's constitutionality, Congress should act quickly to repeal this particular portion of ObamaCare or defund its operations.

School Budgets Retirement Mandate : 1 Trillion Dollars?

What the teacher retirement is and always has been, is just another mandate on taxpayers. Some states retirement programs have taken sever hits in this bad economy but the mandate says the retirement difference must be made up by increased tax support. But many, most, refuse to understand where or how they get paid. Money they believe comes from some place where there is an unending supply.

Retirement Costs and School Budgets
Source: Dara Zeehandelaar and Amber M. Winkler, "The Big Squeeze: Retirement Costs and School District Budgets," Thomas B. Fordham Institute, June 2013.
June 26, 2013

How much and on what terms retired schoolteachers receive pensions differs from place to place and individual to individual, due to varying requirements pertaining to age and length of service. But every state ensures that eligible teachers receive compensation in their golden years, most of them through a pension system. Though the specifics of pension plans vary, the logic behind them is the same: collect dollars and invest them during an employee's working years, and use them to pay the employee a promised amount later, say Dara Zeehandelaar and Amber M. Winkler, researchers at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

State and district obligations for teacher retirement costs take two forms: pensions and health benefits. Regarding the former, many states now carry crippling unfunded liabilities.
  • A 2010 report calculated that teacher pensions across the United States were carrying a reported liability of $332 billion, but that their true liability was much higher -- at least $933 billion -- and would inevitably increase in the future.
  • Another study found that, between 2009 and 2012, funding shortfalls grew in 43 states and the District of Columbia.
In addition to retirement income, states and/or districts also provide health benefits to retirees and sometimes to their families. Many fund these plans on a pay-as-you-go basis, which means they haven't set aside money for future liabilities. Yet with baby boomer teachers retiring en masse, and health care costs much higher than a decade or two ago, this balloon payment is also now coming due.
How did this storm arise?
  • Rather than reining in benefits, states were actually increasing them until recently. More than half of them enhanced educator pension benefits from 1999 to 2001.
  • While it's easy for lawmakers to increase benefits, it's exceptionally difficult for them to reduce them. State constitutions almost universally protect public pensions from complete restructuring, and many shield benefits against reductions unless legislators can prove that their alterations are both reasonable and necessary.
  • Public pensions are not subject to the same accounting standards as private funds. This has led to a variety of dubious practices, such as underestimating the present value of future liabilities and allocating single-year returns over a multiyear period.
Put it all together and one can understand the sources of today's pension crisis, a crisis that policymakers, editorialists, analysts and much of the American public are awakening to.

Progressive's Agenda of Retreat : Mr Obama's "Fundamental" Change

[]I don't believe most Americans comprehend just how far this country has fallen in the eyes of our allies over seas and our enemies.

In truth, I believe most Americans of this generation, the twenty to forty age group, will never believe our country has changed to the degree where the majority are incapable of independent thought to understand the situation that we are currently in today.

The current generation, for the most part, no matter how sever the outcome of decisions made by this president, will never believe it was Mr Obama's fault even to the degree that such decisions will force them into abject poverty.

A disastrous situation will always be someone else's fault. There can be no other answer. For the new progressive socialist liberal to change their thinking that maybe Mr Obama and his party are taking us in the wrong direction is impossible. Incomprehensible!

Case in point, when was the last time you had a rational debate with a progressive liberal? I rest my case.

Worst of all, many Americans will welcome total domination by an oppressive tyrannical  government. It's so much easier to just roll over then stand up taking a chance of being knocked down. Welcome to the new progressive socialist world.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Food Stamps (SNAP) Supplement Ineffective & Fradulent

Like most federal mandated programs, the food stamp nightmare is no different except that this program has a direct relationship to the number of people that vote to sustain the program, and the political party that believes by forcing people into dependency on this program they can develop a voter base that will never go away accept when they die or run out of other peoples money.

Voting for dependency and poverty - what a great idea. Welcome to the progressive socialist liberal Democrat Party.

Food Stamps Are Unsuccessful
Source: Andrew Montgomery, "10 Reasons Food Stamps Need to Be Reformed," FreedomWorks, June 13, 2013.
June 27, 2013 

In recent years, enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has increased dramatically, rising from 26 million beneficiaries in 2007 (one in twelve Americans) to nearly 47 million in 2012 (one in seven Americans). Costs have increased dramatically as well, rising from $35 billion in 2007 to $80 billion in 2012, making it the second most expensive means-tested federal welfare program. As such, it is vital to understand the serious flaws in current food stamp programs, says Andrew Montgomery of FreedomWorks.
  • Ineffective at reducing hunger: A report compiled by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted that while SNAP has had some positive results, "The literature is inconclusive regarding whether SNAP alleviates hunger and malnutrition in low-income households."
  • Subject to large scale fraud and error: The GAO reports that despite great progress, "The amount of SNAP benefits paid in error is substantial, totaling about $2.2 billion in 2009."
  • Lack of transparency: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not disclose product purchases or how many total SNAP dollars are spent on each product, nor does the USDA disclose how much money retailers make off of SNAP.
  • Form of corporate welfare: Food stamp programs guarantee large corporations consistent cash flow, creating a powerful corporate lobbying group that seeks to prevent cuts or changes to SNAP.
  • Overlap and inefficiencies: A report compiled by the GAO found that, "The 18 food assistance programs show signs of program overlap, which can create unnecessary work and lead to inefficient use of resources." Indeed, administrative costs equal about $5.5 billion per year, or about 10 percent of the value of food stamps distributed.
  • Create dependency: The goal of any government welfare program should be to get people back on their feet, not to keep them in poverty and hunger. Current food stamp programs have little work required as a condition of assistance, encouraging the relatively well off to freeload off the system and those in need to remain in poverty.

Green House Gasers Killing Worlds Poor : Power Over Sudstance

Again, who knew? The insanity of the environmental nut jobs can be seen everywhere in the world, but again, no one takes note to do anything about it except reel in fear of being attacked where they live by the eco-fascists. Entire governments quake in fear of their wrath. Why?

What hold do these lunatics have over so many people even when all evidence demonstrates climate change or green house gases are not a threat to world populations?

How Green Protectionism Harms Sustainable Forestry, the Environment and the World's Poor
Source: Marcelo Ostria, "How Green Protectionism Harms Sustainable Forestry, the Environment and the World's Poor," National Center for Policy Analysis, June 25, 2013
June 25, 2013

Under the guise of protecting the world's forests from unsustainable logging practices, proponents of protectionist trade policies have successfully lobbied for so-called "green" measures. Environmental trade regulations ban the importation of natural resources from developing countries unless they meet standards imposed by developed countries, says Marcelo Ostria, a research associate at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

European Union (EU) efforts to reduce forestry product imports from outside timber-producing countries began in 2003 with the implementation of the EU's Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan. The plan required Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA) between developing countries and the EU to ensure a mutual commitment to purchasing only "legally harvested timber," a term that has still not been properly defined.
  • However, experts from EU member states, members of the FLEGT Committee and industry stakeholders have admitted that the EU Timber Regulation needs further clarification.
  • In fact, there is no widely accepted methodology to measure illegal logging, there is no reliable data available, and there is no established international definition of illegal logging.
Trade restrictions, such as those imposed by the FLEGT Action Plan and Voluntary Partnership Agreements, have had a negative impact on developing economies.
The United States has also implemented forestry protectionist measures under a green guise.
  • Amendments to the Lacey Act (originally written to prohibit interstate and international trade in illegally captured wildlife) were extended in 2008 to cover protected plant species, including trees.
  • The Lacey Act amendments expose third parties (without control over or even knowledge of foreign practices) to possible seizure of goods.
Under the pretext of safeguarding the environment, green protectionism benefits domestic suppliers while inhibiting developing countries from efficiently exploiting their natural resources. These protectionist measures conflict with World Trade Organization rules that forbid discrimination against foreign trade products, and they also undermine sustainable forestry development and management in developing economies.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Education Under attack : Muslim Jihad? ( A Video)

Here is a video by Brigitte Gabriel on the influence of the Muslims in our schools and how they are educating our kids to hate our country. And it's not just in our universities as most of us know are completely in the tank for the progressive socialist agenda, now it's in the middle school class room as well. It isn't a stretch to believe this agenda of Muslim influence can be found in class rooms in even the first and second grades.

Take a few minutes and watch this video and think about what is happening in our communities as related to how this education has produced the changes all around us that we don't understand. Americans find it nearly impossible to believe this kind of thing could happen to our beautiful country. The fact that we are under attack from external and  from within is very hard to understand for most of us.

We have been asleep at the wheel up to this point, and given what Mr Obama and his companions in the progressive socialist liberal Democrat party are doing to this country, in Mr Obama own words, to "fundamentally" change America from what he sees as the problem with this country, America being a free nation with individual rights under our Constitution. Mr Obama wants to change this into a nation of socialist tyranny, orchestrated by an elite few from Washington.

Believe this for what it is, to stay asleep while our nation falls into a nightmare from which we may never recover is to do so by design. We as voting citizens have to want this to happen, either from ignorance or compliancy doesn't matter, it will happen sooner then you know if we don't understand the peril we face. Much of the progressive agenda is already in place with ObamaCare and soon a new Immigration agenda that will assure Americas third world status. And with unemployment at better then 13%, U6 rate, this is only the beginning.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Medicare Shortfall : Trillions Beyond Trillions

Even in the face of such numbers that are reflected in this article concerned with how Medicare will collapse under the weight of millions of new recipients coming on line in the next decade, not including the 40 million new citizens under the immigration bill now in congress, we have to except the idea that many among us believe 'all is well', the government is telling us the truth, Americas future is bright, and to make this work out all we have to do is trust.

If this make you feel better about our government, good for you. But don't come crying when all the beautiful promises fall short. Look in the mirror - that is were the problem started and now that is where you will have to live.

Medicare by the Scary Numbers
Source: John C. Goodman and Laurence J. Kotlikoff, "Medicare by the Scary Numbers," Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2013.
June 25, 2013

When the latest Medicare trustees report came out at the end of May, the White House spin masters told us Medicare's finances have improved and one of the reasons is ObamaCare, say John C. Goodman, president and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Laurence J. Kotlikoff, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis and an economist at Boston University.
Here's the real story:
  • In their report, the trustees acknowledge that current law envisages dramatic reductions in future Medicare outlays which may be "difficult to sustain."
  • The unfunded liability in Medicare, the trustees tell us, is $34 trillion over the next 75 years.
  • Looking indefinitely into the future, the unfunded liability is $43 trillion -- almost three times the size of today's economy.
  • Based on more plausible assumptions, such as those reflected in the "alternative" scenario for Medicare produced by the Congressional Budget Office in June 2012, the long-term shortfall is more than $100 trillion.
The trustees report's predicted expenditures are based on the assumption built into the law that next Jan. 1 there will be a 25 percent decrease in the fees that Medicare pays doctors. The reason has nothing to do with ObamaCare. In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress declared that Medicare physician fees could grow no faster than the economy as a whole. Since then, though, Congress has postponed the cuts on 14 occasions, not allowing them to take place. Why assume things will be different now?

A second problem does stem from ObamaCare. In order to pay for the expansion of health insurance for the young, the new health law calls for steep cuts in the growth of health care spending on the elderly.
  • Whereas Medicare spending per person in real terms has been increasing at about the rate of growth of real gross domestic product (GDP) per person plus two percentage points, the ObamaCare law calls for a spending growth rate of GDP plus 0.04 percent.
  • Assuming this slower growth rate will materialize, over the next decade it produces about $716 billion in savings.
But the savings don't stop there. The health reform law mandates slower growth in health care costs forever through the use of such initiatives as electronic medical records and "coordinated care." However, three separate Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports have found that these programs don't work to cut costs.

As a result, Medicare will have to resort to a fallback mechanism: more cuts in provider fees. Were these cuts to be implemented, and if Medicare spending grew no faster than the economy as a whole, the problem of Medicare would be solved.

Yet studies by the Medicare actuaries in 2012 show that for this formula to work, the suppression of provider fees would have to be draconian.

In the end, from a financial point of view, senior patients would become less desirable than welfare recipients.

Illegals Surge Across Boarder : Free Stuff for Everyone

It doesn't matter what the number of crossing are - it's about getting votes for the progressive Democrats - and if the truth be known, the illegals don't care that they are being used, they just want to get into this country and start living the good life that someone else is paying for. And why not, free is good. Right?

Just ask anyone that voted last November for the reelection of Mr Obama and they will tell you just how unfair the ruling class is and how Mr Obama is trying to fix it if only the Republicans would just stop trying to defeat his plans to help this country.

Little wonder the illegals are crossing in larger numbers now since the immigration bill will make all illegals citizens almost immediately, progressives will see to that, and in just a few months ObamaCare will start giving everyone free health care, and along with Medicare and Medicaid, this has to be the land of opportunity.

Rise in Illegal Crossing Roils Immigration Debate
 Byron York | Jun 25, 2013

There was a striking moment in the Senate Judiciary Committee's debate on the Gang of Eight's comprehensive immigration reform bill when Republican Jeff Sessions and Democrat Charles Schumer argued over the number of immigrants who would be allowed into the country under the new legislation.

Sessions cited reports suggesting the figure would be more than 20 million over the next decade in addition to the 11 million or so who are already in the United States illegally. Schumer took issue with that, although he wouldn't name a figure of his own.
Then Schumer declared the whole dispute beside the point. "It is not that, 'Oh, this bill is allowing many more people to come into this country than would have come,'" he said. "They are coming. They're either coming under law or not under law."

The Democratic leader of the Gang of Eight continued: "This argument that there are going to be 20 million new people in this country under this bill ignores the fact that there are going to be lots of millions ... in the country illegally if we don't have a bill."
What made the exchange notable was that many Democrats who oppose more stringent border security measures argue that after recent increases in spending and resources the U.S.-Mexico border is already pretty secure -- "as secure now as it has ever been," in the words of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. They also suggest that the number of illegal crossers is at an all-time low and will likely never rise again to levels seen in the 1990s and 2000s.

What Schumer conceded, perhaps in an unguarded moment, is that the border remains quite porous, and the U.S. can expect "lots of millions" to cross illegally in coming years if nothing more is done. The disagreement on Capitol Hill, of course, is over what should be done, but Schumer's off-the-cuff analysis provides a lot of material for Republicans pressing for a guarantee of greater security measures before millions of illegal immigrants are given legal status.
That GOP position received an even bigger boost with a recent report from the border in The New York Times. The crux of the story is that the number of illegal crossings is rising, and in response to greater security measures in Arizona, the flow from Mexico has shifted east to the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.

Yes, the number of illegal crossers is down from a dozen years ago as the U.S. economy remains a less powerful magnet than it once was. "But after nearly a decade of steady declines, the count has started to rise again over the past year," the Times reported. "The Rio Grande Valley has displaced the Tucson enforcement zone as the hot spot, with makeshift rafts crossing the river in increasing numbers, high-speed car chases occurring along rural roads and a growing number of dead bodies turning up on ranchers' land, according to local officials."
"There is just so much happening at the same time -- it is overwhelming," a Brooks County, Texas, sheriff's deputy told the Times.
Border Patrol agents are outnumbered; extensive, passable stretches of the border are unwatched; whole groups of immigrants cross unseen. "People are just crossing without fear," said an alderman in La Joya.

It's happening in part because the American economy, hit so hard by the economic downturn, is finally improving, becoming a draw again for immigrants, especially those from Central America who travel through Mexico on their way to the Texas border. Also, crime remains a terrible problem in many immigrants' home countries. And word is spreading that the U.S. Congress is contemplating a measure to legalize millions of illegal border-crossers.

That is the backdrop for this week's Senate debate on border security in the Gang of Eight plan. Democrats are dead set against any proposal that would make permanent legal status and a path to citizenship contingent on measurable improvements in border security. On the other side, many Republicans believe those improvements will never happen unless the law says legalization won't be allowed without security first. The only question is whether Republicans will stick to their guns or give in to Democrats.

In the debate, supporters of the Gang of Eight bill will almost certainly pronounce the border more secure than it has ever been; such rhetoric is a staple of such debates. But the situation on the border remains troublesome, and if the American economy continues to improve, as everyone hopes it does, the problem could become worse.

Schumer is probably right. In coming years, "lots of millions" will seek to come to the U.S. illegally unless something is done.

Congress Approval Sinks : Powerless to Act!

Washington Update
Little wonder why there is no faith in congress - they all seem to be self servicing and powerless to do anything about our problems.

Worse they seem to not care what happens to the nation and find it more convenient to 'go along to get along' - a sure sign that we are in big trouble.
And by being so ineffective they are putting our nation at risk.

What I fear is that we are already so far gone we can't recover no matter who wins the next election.

Mr Obama & The Pope : Crowd Goes Wild (Humor)

Put aside any problems with political correctness you might have and enjoy this one about how the new majority of Americans believe Mr Obama is not our friend. Most people will have to agree he is acting like we are not his friend, right?

Good stuff to start the day.

An exceptionally Good Catholic Joke
The Pope and Obama are on the same stage in Yankee Stadium in front of a huge crowd.

The Pope leans towards President Obama and said, "Do you know that with one little wave of my hand I can make every person in this crowd go wild with joy?
This joy will not be a momentary display, but will go deep into their hearts and they'll forever speak of this day and rejoice!"

Obama replied, "I seriously doubt that!  With one little wave of your hand... show me!"

So the Pope backhanded him and knocked him off the stage!

AND THE CROWD ROARED & CHEERED WILDLY and there was happiness throughout the land!

Kind of brings a tear to your eye, doesn't it?

Roswell - Area 51 Explained : Consequences Horrific (Humor)

This is good stuff - and with close examination, it's easy to see how this is true, I believe this as it make so much sense.
The year 1947--explains a lot!
Some of you may recall that on July 8, 1947, a little more than
64 years ago, numerous witnesses claim that an Unidentified Flying
Object, (UFO), with five aliens aboard, crashed onto a sheep and
mule ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico. This is a well known
incident that many say has long been covered-up by the U.S. Air
Force, as well as other Federal Agencies and Organizations.
However, What you may NOT know is that in the month of April, year
1948, nine months after the historic day, the following people were born:
Barrack Obama Sr.
Albert A. Gore, Jr.
Hillary Rodham
William J. Clinton
John F. Kerry
Howard Dean
Nancy Pelosi
Dianne Feinstein
Charles E. Schumer
Barbara Boxer
Joe Biden
This is the consequence of aliens breeding with sheep and jack-asses.
I truly hope this bit of information clears up a lot of things for
It certainly did for me.
And now you can stop wondering why they support the bill to help
all Illegal Aliens ! ! !

Monday, June 24, 2013

Medical Mandates Scam System : More Big Government?

This is just another reason to reform all of our medical mandates like Medicare and Medicaid. The amount of money that we could save by reform is very significant, allowing doctors and hospitals to enter the free market. Competition? Oh no! Not that!

Doctors Perform Thousands of Unnecessary Surgeries
Source: Peter Eisler and Barbara Hansen, "Doctors Perform Thousands of Unnecessary Surgeries," USA Today, June 20, 2013.
June 24, 2013

Tens of thousands of times each year, patients are wheeled into the nation's operating rooms for surgery that isn't necessary. Some fall victim to predators that enrich themselves by bilking insurers for operations that are not medically justified. Even more turn to doctors who simply lack the competence or training to recognize when a surgical procedure can be avoided, either because the medical facts don't warrant it or because there are non-surgical treatments that would better serve the patient, says USA Today.

The scope and toll of the problem are enormous, yet it remains largely hidden. Public attention has been limited to a few sensational cases.
  • In fact, unnecessary surgeries might account for 10 percent to 20 percent of all operations in some specialties, including a wide range of cardiac procedures as well as many spinal surgeries.
  • Knee replacements, hysterectomies and cesarean sections are among the other surgical procedures performed more often than needed.
Since 2005, more than 1,000 doctors have made payments to settle or close malpractice claims in surgical cases that involved allegations of unnecessary or inappropriate procedures. About half the doctors' payments involved allegations of serious permanent injury or death, and many of the cases involved multiple plaintiffs, suggesting many hundreds, if not thousands, of victims.

The costs of unnecessary surgeries touch consumers and taxpayers in ways most never imagine. Medicare, Medicaid and their private insurance counterparts spend billions of dollars on operations that shouldn't be done, draining health care dollars that could go to far better use.
  • About 10 percent of all spinal fusions paid for by Medicare in 2011 were not necessary, either because there was no medical basis for them or because doctors did not follow standards of care by exploring non-surgical treatments.
  • A 2011 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reviewed records for 112,000 patients who had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), a pacemaker-like device that corrects heartbeat irregularities. In 22.5 percent of the cases, researchers found no medical evidence to support installing the devices.
The fee-for-service nature of U.S. health care essentially rewards those that put more patients under the knife. The 2010 health care law, still being implemented, promises changes in the payment system that may pressure health care providers to cut unnecessary surgeries, but the key is to redefine the doctor-patient relationship.

Washington State Bridge Collapse : Building A Light Rail System?

Interesting - I thought this bridge collapsed because a truck struck the superstructure causing to fall? Maybe the bridge was out of date but maybe the state didn't have the proper signage for the truckers to know the height and weight maximum. This article seems to indicate the latter.

Why does the press seem to believe it necessary to always publish what they think should be the story instead what the facts say the story has to be? Just more politics?

Given the fact that a light rail system is in the works, and knowing that it will never produce a profit, and the fact that the state doesn't have the resources to build it or fix the bridges at the same time tells a story of progressive socialist Democrat control. When ignorance and fraud abound, there are the Democrats. Detroit? Philadelphia?

Washington's Political Bait-and-Switch
Source: Daniel Bier, "Throwing Money at Bridges Will Not Fix the Problem," Reason Foundation, June 17, 2013.
June 24, 2013

A near-disaster at the Skagit River Bridge in Washington state sent three people plunging into the river last month. Poor signage and a functionally obsolete bridge appear to be the major factors. Predictably, bureaucrats and politicians are using this occurrence to demand even more money for unnecessary projects, while critical infrastructure needs are neglected. Voters shouldn't let bureaucrats reward inefficiency by approving new taxes while existing funds are being frittered away, says Daniel Bier of the Reason Foundation.
  • Many are using the event in Washington as a call to action on the long-postponed $3.2 billion Columbia River Bridge connecting Oregon and Washington, which would replace the current obsolete bridge.
  • While Oregon has already approved $450 million in funding, Washington has been cautious about proceeding given the project's enormous costs, including $750 million to build a light rail line that will never pay for itself.
  • Washington must also approve $450 million this year in order to capture $1.2 billion in federal funds for the project.
  • The Skagit River incident further serves to focus pressure on the legislature to approve new taxes for this expensive light rail line.
There are many things that can and should be done to improve Washington's bridges and roads.
  • Directing funds toward maintenance and away from flashy new transit projects and a focus on more efficient use of existing funds are both crucial.
  • Better signs indicating height, weight and speed restrictions on deficient and obsolete bridges could make relatively little money go a long way toward preventing future accidents and collapses.
But currently taxpayers are being offered a bait-and-switch, as politicians emphasize the danger of old bridges in order to secure additional funding for unrelated pet projects, like stormwater-mitigation and light rail.

Voters and legislators should not allow this event to pressure them into supporting inefficient and uneconomical projects that will divert desperately needed funds away from necessary maintenance and improvements. Washington state's bridge problem lies with poor management -- not poor funding.

Progressive Budget Limites Savings : Enough Already

I wonder if it bothers the population that our government wants the power to deicide how much is enough for the individual to accumulated in the way of funds for retirement? But then why not, ObamaCare is telling us how much medical care we need and the death panels tells if we live or die. What good is the saving account if your life is decided to be worthless?

Maybe the citizens of our great country are ready for our glorious leaders to tell us when enough is enough. As long as their thumbs work, everything else is unimportant.

Limiting Retirement Account Growth Would Punish Saving
Source: Pamela Villarreal, "Limiting Retirement Account Growth Would Punish Saving," National Center for Policy Analysis, June 24, 2013.
June 24, 2013

President Obama's proposed 2014 budget includes a limit on the growth of tax-advantaged retirement accounts. Though Congress is unlikely to adopt his budget proposal, the idea of limiting retirement account accumulations could garner support among policymakers who favor wealth taxes. However, limiting tax-advantaged accumulations violates a promise people relied on when they made deposits to these accounts, says Pamela Villarreal, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Obama's budget assumes the 2013 limit of $3 million is sufficient to pay a lifetime annuity of about $205,000 a year. But, in theory, a worker contributing the maximum allowed to a 401(k) plan (assuming the contribution limit was increased annually for inflation) for 40 years could easily have more than $3 million in a retirement account, depending on the rate of return.
  • With a 7 percent rate of return (before adjusting for inflation) compounded annually, the 401(k) account would have a balance of $6 million -- the equivalent of $1.8 million in today's dollars -- and fall within the "reasonable" limits defined by Obama's budget.
  • However, with a 10 percent rate of return, the saver would have a balance of $12.9 million -- the equivalent of $3.8 million in today's dollars, slightly higher than the "reasonable" limit defined by Obama's budget.
  • With a 12 percent return, the saver would have a balance of $22.2 million -- equal to $6.6 million today, far exceeding the limit.
 An accumulation limit would create a host of problems.
  • An arbitrarily set "reasonable" amount of tax-advantaged retirement income does not account for cost-of-living differences.
  • When workers accumulate tax-advantaged savings, they have the option of choosing which financial product best fits their retirement needs. But a limit of $3,000,000 for an individual retiring this year would favor annuities over timed withdrawals.
  • Accounts could easily exceed what is needed to fund a $205,000 annuity after adjusting for inflation.
  • Simplified employee pension plans have more generous contribution limits than 401(k)s or IRAs -- up to $51,000 in 2013. However, if the current maximum contribution were adjusted annually for inflation, after 40 years they would exceed the cap.
What is the solution? Create a level playing field. An arbitrary accumulation limit attempts to level the outcome of tax-advantaged retirement accounts without leveling the playing field. Instead of taxing accumulations above a certain amount (essentially, punishing wise investment) policymakers should address the unequal contribution limits among the various plans.

Federal Reserve Buying Time/Elections : 2014 Politic Stimulus?

Political Cartoons by Chip BokIf you haven't noticed many of the 'talking heads' proclaiming the economy is on the move to better times, and it has nothing to do with the fed chair buying $85 to $100 billion dollars worth of bonds every month, look again.

If you haven't noticed that the market took a huge hit when the fed chair just hinted he might pull back on the buying program, you should not be any where near a broker or be listening to the people that are so much smarter then most of us saying 'it's good to spend, manufacture, money we don't have to save the economy'.

If the fed chair said he will stop buying by the end of next month, what do you think would happen to the stock market? A 1000 point drop? 1500 point drop? Now I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer for sure, but even I could see this would come to no good long before the fed started this latest buying spree. Many of us knew the QE1 and 2 would be of little or no use, let alone the $852 billion spent on Stimulus. Has anyone noticed the U6 unemployment rate has increased every year since 2009?

I'm extremely frustrated these days as I struggle with this situation of our leaders throwing bad money after bad money on spending programs that don't fix the problem. These people see that it doesn't work but yet they continue to double down.

Is this the politics of destruction and fundamental change? You can't shock this up to ignorance alone.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Green Energy Insanity : Electric Cars Need Coal Energy

Green energy is a bust? Who knew? Whatz this all about? It's about the government picking winners and losers in the market place. It's about the government spending tax dollars on green projects they know will fail but do it anyway as this is a good way to launder money for progressive Democrat campaign funds which amounted to millions.

What's really neat is that the Democrats made no effort to hide the fact that they were organizing these special projects, solar and wind enterprises, for the sole purpose of returning some of the tax dollars to the campaign coffers of Democrat candidates, that is, bundlers that owned or managed these special companies were operatives of the Obama election and reelection campaign.

They said it was to stop green house gases, the song of the environmentalists seeking more power, they said it was that demon coal that was causing so much damages to the environment, but in reality it was only to secure more power over the individual through more government regulation.

Even better, there was nearly no out rage from the general public or the press concerning this theft of tax dollars or individual freedom save FOX news and talk radio. One has to wonder why? Is it the fear of being labeled a social pariah?  Worse, a racist? Is it easier to just shut up and let the chips fall where they may rather then be labeled?

When the country becomes unmanageable , think back on your decision to do nothing when such action could have made a difference. Edmond Burke said it best, " For tyranny to succeed, all it takes is for good men to do nothing".

Electric Cars: The Environmentalist Paradox
Source: James R. Healey, "Electric-Car Costs Can Outweigh Cheap Fuel," USA Today, June 12, 2013.
June 18, 2013

The government recently said that the fuel cost for an electric vehicle is only about one-third of the cost to fuel a gasoline vehicle for the same distance, but that Energy Department (DOE) formula leaves out some key financial and environmental factors in the overall cost of owning an electric vehicle, says USA Today.
  • Electric car owners spend only $1.14, on average, to go as far as gasoline-car owners do on one gallon of gas, which averages about $3.63, according to travel consultant AAA.
  • The $1.14 number was trumpeted by electric-car interests ranging from General Motors, which sells the mostly electric Chevrolet Volt, to a variety of clean-fuel and environmental advocacy blogs.
  • However, the DOE calculation blazingly illuminates a sharp conflict between clean fuel and cheap fuel.
Electric cars are so cheap to run because of cheap electricity available to recharge the batteries. The reason electricity is cheap is because of cheap, if not always clean-burning, coal, and cheap, if not necessarily carbon-emission-free, natural gas.
  • Burning coal accounts for about 40 percent of the power generated in the United States, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data for the first quarter of 2013.
  • Coal's share of electricity generation has ranged from a post-recession high of 47.4 percent the first quarter of 2010 to a low of 36.3 percent first quarter last year, according to EIA data.
  • During the same period, natural gas has ranged from a low of 20.5 percent in the first quarter to a high of 33.1 percent of all fuel used to produce electricity in third quarter last year, EIA says.
  • All told, roughly two-thirds of the fuel was burned to provide power to recharge the locally clean, electrified vehicles is carbon-based.
Beyond the environmental costs, the DOE calculation also does not factor in the purely financial drawbacks of electrified vehicles that include:
  • Expensive accessories and your time: Getting and installing a 240-volt home charger for a plug-in hybrid or electric car -- pretty much a practical necessity -- runs $1,500 to $3,000.
  • Expensive batteries: To replace a battery pack outside of warranty could cost from $4,000 to more than three times that much for a $70,000 Tesla luxury electric.
  • Uncertain depreciation: Electrified vehicles will depreciate much faster from the sticker price than the most-similar gasoline models. But, if you assume the buyer got the federal subsidy and possible state aid, depreciation's similar for the gas and electrified models.

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Politics of Fear and Loss : Fear Breeds Compliance

Fear is what drives the progressive agenda, and in a lot of cases, it works. But it's not just a fear of running out of stuff like oil or natural gas for our homes and cars as this article states, it's also about be classified as an undesirable by those in power. The question is what's worse?

The progressive socialists set an level of tolerance they believe is desirable for the population to have or be labeled as a deviant and therefore must be reeducated or cast out of acceptable society. People are social animals for the most part, and being cast into the outer darkness is terrifying. What could be worse then being left out of the group?

Remember the TV adds during the presidential elections in 2008 and 2012 where it was decreed if you didn't vote for the new young candidate you would be labeled and scorned for being hateful and ignorant of the new thinking, the 'One' that was to bring "fundamental" change to a flawed world, he would save us from rising seas, rising temperatures and societal intemperance. Vote to bring doom and gloom to an end.

In reality, all that happened was more doom and gloom and if you complained you are labeled and scorned. Happiness is knowing what to do to fix a problem but finding not doing it, to avoid a savvier  social stigma, more socially rewarding. Millions voted to take the 'feel good' option but at the same time forfeited the most precious of all options, individual freedom.

The U.S. Doom and Gloom Obsession
Source: Bjørn Lomborg, "The Limits to Panic," Project Syndicate, June 17, 2013.
June 20, 2013

We often hear how the world as we know it will end, usually through ecological collapse. Indeed, more than 40 years after the Club of Rome released the mother of all apocalyptic forecasts - "The Limits to Growth" -- its basic ideas are still with us. But time has not been kind to these ideas, says Bjørn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center.

"The Limits to Growth" warned humanity in 1972 that devastating collapse was just around the corner. But, while we have seen financial panics since then, there have been no real shortages or productive breakdowns. Instead, the resources generated by human ingenuity remain far ahead of human consumption.
Unfortunately, the report's legacy remains: We have inherited a tendency to obsess over misguided remedies for largely trivial problems, while often ignoring big problems and sensible remedies.
  • The genius of "The Limits to Growth" was to fuse worries with fears of running out of stuff. We were doomed, because too many people would consume too much.
  • Even if our ingenuity bought us some time, we would end up killing the planet and ourselves with pollution.
  • The only hope was to stop economic growth itself, cut consumption, recycle and force people to have fewer children, stabilizing society at a significantly poorer level.
The authors of "The Limits to Growth" predicted that before 2013, the world would have run out of aluminum, copper, gold, lead, mercury, molybdenum, natural gas, oil, silver, tin, tungsten and zinc.
  • Instead, despite recent increases, commodity prices have generally fallen to about a third of their level 150 years ago.
  • Technological innovations have replaced mercury in batteries, dental fillings and thermometers.
  • Oil and natural gas were to run out in 1990 and 1992, respectively; today, reserves of both are larger than they were in 1970, although we consume dramatically more.
  • Within the past six years, shale gas alone has doubled potential gas resources in the United States and halved the price.
As for economic collapse, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that global gross domestic product per capita will increase 14-fold over this century and 24-fold in the developing world.

Obsession with doom-and-gloom scenarios distracts us from the real global threats. Poverty is one of the greatest killers of all, while easily curable diseases still claim 15 million lives every year -- 25 percent of all deaths. The solution is economic growth. When lifted out of poverty, most people can afford to avoid infectious diseases. This will create massive improvements in health, longevity and quality of life.

College Degrees Increase : Jobs Decrese & Debt Increases

It would be interesting to find out what the college degrees are and how they have been put to use. If past history is any indicator in these matters, most of the degrees are nearly worthless as a means to getting a quality job. Students in general never look ahead to the real world while have a good time in school, the future will take care of itself. Borrow and spend now, worry later. Now it's party time!

This should ring some bells in a lot of heads as this is exactly what our present government is doing. What a great example they are setting for the future generations. Not only will the new graduate have a huge debt to pay off but they are saddled with the national debt as well. Welcome to the real world.

The only positive aspect of a worthless degree that burdens the student with ten's of thousands of debt might be forcing some responsibility on the new graduate to find some way to start to pay off the debt, taking any kind of job that comes along to get started. Reality is a harsh teacher.

The realization that comes after graduation and finding that there aren't any jobs related to one's five year fruitless endeavor brings clarity and humility to the job search.

More Americans Have College Degrees
Source: Catherine Rampell, "Data Reveal a Rise in College Degrees Among Americans," New York Times, June 12, 2013.
June 20, 2013

The number of Americans graduating from college has surged in recent years, sending the share with a college degree to a new high, federal data shows. The surge follows more than two decades of slow growth in college completion, which caused the United States to fall behind other countries and led politicians from both parties, including President Obama, to raise alarms, says the New York Times.
  • Last year, 33.5 percent of Americans ages 25 to 29 had at least a bachelor's degree, compared with 24.7 percent in 1995, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
  • In 1975, the share was 21.9 percent.
  • The number of two-year college degrees, master's degrees and doctorates has also risen recently.
The increases appear to be driven both by a sharp rise in college enrollment and by an improvement among colleges in graduating students. The trends could bring good news in future years, economists say, as more Americans become qualified for higher-paying jobs as the economy recovers.

The attainment of bachelor's degrees has risen much faster for young women in the past decade than for young men. It has also risen among young whites, blacks and Hispanics, though relatively little among Asians, who already had the highest rate of college completion.
  • The share of people with a college degree also varies tremendously by state, with 48.1 percent of people ages 25 to 34 in Massachusetts holding a bachelor's degree, but just 20.4 percent in Nevada, according to the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
  • The unemployment rate for graduates of four-year colleges between the ages of 25 and 34 was 3.3 percent in March, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For high school graduates in the same age group who had not attended college, it was 11.8 percent.
Some of the recent increase in college completion has come among students who enroll in college or return to it at older ages, and experts say any future increases will probably need to come among this group as well, given its growth potential.

Progressive's Agenda Dictates "Fundamental" Change : Fairness & Control

Question, why the concern with those among us that find ways to get ahead faster then those that have decided to take a path of least resistance? Why is it so important to the progressives that those more inspired to achieve be brought down? 

I believe it's the new norm of socialist thought where it isn't 'fair' that some of us are smarter then others and therefore the most prosperous must share their good fortune with those that are less fortunate. Maybe it's more then just socialist thought, maybe it's much more then that.

The Progressive socialist liberal Democrat agenda, 'take from the productive and give to the unproductive' while securing control of both, is the driving force for "fundamentally changing America," as stated by Mr Obama in 2008. Mission accomplished!

Defending the One Percent
Source: N. Gregory Mankiw, "Defending the One Percent," Harvard University, June 8, 2013.
June 20, 2013

Since the 1970s, average incomes have grown, but the growth has not been uniform across the income distribution. The incomes at the top, especially in the top 1 percent, have grown much faster than average. These high earners have made significant economic contributions, but they have also reaped large gains. The question for public policy is what, if anything, to do about it, says N. Gregory Mankiw, the Robert M. Beren Professor of Economics at Harvard University.

This development is one of the largest challenges facing the body politic. A few numbers illustrate the magnitude of the issue.
  • The share of income, excluding capital gains, earned by the top 1 percent rose from 7.7 percent in 1973 to 17.4 percent in 2010.
  • Even more striking is the share earned by the top 0.01 percent -- an elite group that, in 2010, had a membership requirement of annual income exceeding $5.9 million.
  • This group's share of total income rose from 0.5 percent in 1973 to 3.3 percent in 2010.
Equality of opportunity is often viewed as a social goal in itself, but economists recognize that the failure to achieve such equality would normally lead to inefficiency as well. If some individuals are precluded from pursuing certain paths in life, then they might be unable to contribute fully to growing the economic pie. If everyone is equal, then innovation is impossible.

In particular, parents and children share genes, a fact that would lead to intergenerational persistence in income even in a world of equal opportunities.
  • IQ, for example, has been widely studied, and it has a large degree of heritability. Smart parents are more likely to have smart children, and their greater intelligence will be reflected, on average, in higher incomes.
  • Of course, IQ is only one dimension of talent, but it is easy to believe that other dimensions, such as self-control, ability to focus and interpersonal skills, have a degree of genetic heritability as well.
  • This is not to say that we live in a world of genetic determinism. But it would be a mistake to go to the other extreme and presume no genetic transmission of economic outcomes.
Concern about income inequality, especially growth in incomes of the top 1 percent, cannot be founded primarily on concern about inefficiency and inequality of opportunity. If the growing incomes of the rich are to be a focus of public policy, it must be because income inequality is a problem in and of itself.

Foreign Policy - A New Direction : The Palin Doctrine

Oh, but wait - Palin is an idiot, right? The smartest people in the room are progressive socialist liberal Democrats that are reeling in fear of losing their grip on the ignorant among us and therefore taxpayers money. All anyone has to do to find out who the progressives fear the most is see who they attack with the most hate. Palin? Who knew?

Progressive socialist Democrats believe in two things and two things only, money and power, which in turn, begets control. To believe otherwise is folly. To believe otherwise is to guarantee destruction.

The Palin Doctrine
Patrick J. Buchanan

On U.S. military intervention in Syria’s civil war, where “both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line ‘Allahu akbar’ … I say let Allah sort it out.”

So said Sarah Palin to the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference. And, as is not infrequently the case, she has nailed it. Hours later, Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times, at length, echoed Palin: “Those who are urging the U.S. to get more deeply involved in the Syrian conflict now are living in the past.”

Four fundamental changes make it “no longer realistic, or even desirable, for the U.S. to dominate” the Middle East as we did from the Suez crisis of 1956 through the Iraq invasion of 2003.
The four changes: the failures of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the Great Recession, the Arab Spring and emerging U.S. energy independence.
Indeed, with $2 trillion sunk, 7,000 U.S. troops dead, 40,000 wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans dead, and millions of refugees, what do we have to show for this vast human and material waste?

Can a country with an economy limping along, one that has run four consecutive deficits in excess of $1 trillion, afford another imperial adventure?
On the Shiite side of the Syrian civil war are Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Hezbollah and Syrian President Bashar Assad. On the Sunni side are the al-Qaida-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra, Sunni jihadists from across the Middle East, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Is victory for either side worth yet another U.S. war? Ought we not stand back and ask: What vital interest is imperiled here? And even if Americans favor one side or the other, how lasting an impact could any U.S. intervention have? The region is in turmoil.

Since the Tunisian uprising that dethroned an autocratic ally, dictators have fallen in Egypt and Libya. There have been a Shiite revolt in Bahrain, a civil war in Yemen and a civil-sectarian war in Syria that has cost 90,000 lives. Iraq is disintegrating. Al-Qaida is in Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, the Maghreb region and Mali.

Now the muezzin’s call to religious war is heard.
“How could 100 million Shiites defeat 1.7 billion (Sunnis)?” roared powerful Saudi cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, calling for a Sunni-Shiite war. Al-Qaradawi denounces Assad’s Alawite sect as “more infidel than Christians and Jews” and calls Hezbollah “the party of the devil.”
“Everyone who has the ability and has training to kill … is required to go” to Syria, said al-Qaradawi.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban have made a comeback, and the United States is negotiating with the same crowd we sent an army to oust in 2001. And the press reports we will be leaving behind $7 billion in U.S. military vehicles and equipment when we depart.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the most successful Turkish leader since Kemal Ataturk, appears to have lost his mandate, with hundreds of thousands pouring into streets and squares both to denounce and to defend him.

The United States, says Rachman, “has recognized that, ultimately, the people of the Middle East are going to have to shape their own destinies. Many of the forces at work in the region – such as Islamism and Sunni-Shia sectarianism – are alarming to the West, but they cannot be forever channeled or suppressed.”
Did those clamoring today for intervention in Syria learn nothing from Ronald Reagan’s intervention in an earlier Arab civil war, the one in Lebanon? Result: 241 dead Marines, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut bombed and hostages taken.
Reagan left office believing his decision to put Marines in Lebanon was his greatest mistake. And to retrieve those hostages, he acceded to a transfer of weapons to Iran, an action that almost broke his presidency. Yet it is not only in the Middle East that we are “living in the past,” in a world long gone. As Ted Galen Carpenter writes in Chronicles, under NATO we are committed to go to war with Russia on behalf of 27 nations.

If Russia collides with Estonia or Latvia over the treatment of their Russian minorities, we fight Russia. For whose benefit is this commitment? Today Japan spends 1 percent of its gross domestic product on defense. Yet the USA is committed to go to war to defend not only the home islands but the Senkaku islets and rocks in the East China Sea that China also claims. Are the Senkakus really worth a war with China?

NATO was established to defend Europe. Yet Europe spends less on its own defense than we do. Sixty years after the Korean War, we remain committed to defend South Korea against North Korea. Yet South Korea has an economy 40 times as large as North Korea’s.
Former Rep. Ron Paul asks: Why, when U.S. debt is larger than our GDP and we are running mammoth annual deficits, are we borrowing money abroad to give away in foreign aid?
Good question. As for those ethnic, sectarian and civil wars raging across the Middle East, let Allah sort it out.


Friday, June 21, 2013

Farm Bill Fails Vote : Progressives Fear Voter Seperation

Political Cartoons by Chip BokThat the Republicans killed the farm bill as it stands is unexpected but delightful. With 70% of the bill being food stamps is unacceptable to anyone that has to work for a living.

The Republicans also want to start reducing the amount of dollars spent on food stamp by 7 billion. This too was totally unacceptable for the Democrats.

Also the Republicans want to split off the food stamps program and make it a separate debate was totally rejected by progressive socialist Democrat. By making food stamp a separated debate, the general public will have a better idea of just how bad the system of 'free stuff' has become. It also will make stealing for the program that much harder for Democrats as well separating it from the farm bill, separate thousands of voters from the Democrat party. Unacceptable.

Progressive Health Care Mandate (ACA) Hides Billions for HHS

With ObamaCare fast becoming the largest mandated program in our history, bigger the Social Security and Medicare combined, and worse, many of the general public haven't taken the time to investigate it's total encompassing nature, and as a result of their ignorance, will find themselves crushed under it financial burden and it's attack on their personal freedom. This will become effective January 1,2014 if we move to stop it, but how is the question.

Wait, I know how to stop this from destroying our country, vote for more progressive socialist Democrats.

The past four years has been just a winner for everyone, right? What we need now is more winning agendas like green energy, bailing out GM labor union and trillions more in stimulus money, that we don't have, spent on more local governments to keep union members employed to make sure they all vote Democrat.

What a good way to spend our tax dollars, making sure the car of state headed for the cliff has someone behind the wheel pressing on the accelerator but ready to bail out at the last minute before the car goes over the edge.

ObamaCare Bill Includes Lobbying Funds
Source: Stuart Taylor, "ObamaCare's Slush Fund Fuels A Broader Lobbying Controversy," Forbes, May 30, 2013.
June 11, 2013

A rarely noticed part of President Obama's Affordable Care Act channels some $12.5 billion into a vaguely defined "Prevention and Public Health Fund" over the next decade. That money is going for everything from massage therapists who offer "calming techniques" to groups advocating higher state and local taxes on tobacco and soda, and stricter zoning restrictions on fast food restaurants, says Stuart Taylor, a nonresident senior fellow of the Brookings Institution.

The program, which is run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has raised alarms among congressional critics, who call it a "slush fund" because the department can spend the money as it sees fit without going through the congressional appropriations process. The sums involved are vast.
  • By 2022, HHS will be able to spend $2 billion per year at its sole discretion, in perpetuity.
  • What makes the Prevention and Public Health Fund controversial is its multibillion-dollar size, its unending nature (the fund never expires), and its vague spending mandate: any program designed "to improve health and help restrain the rate of growth" of health care costs.
Republicans in both the House of Representatives and Senate have complained that much of the spending seems politically motivated and are alarmed that some of the federal money went to groups who described their own activities as contacting state, city and county lawmakers to urge higher taxes on high-calorie sodas and tobacco, or to call for bans on fast food restaurants within 1,000 feet of a school, or total bans on smoking in outdoor venues, such as beaches or parks.

ObamaCare Drives Doctors to Innovation : Cash Is King

As the crush for medical care skyrockets as millions more enter the health care system due to ObamaCare, driving the quality of health care down, but people that want good personal care will find doctors that care about giving good health care and it will, eventually be competitive. Responsible working class individuals are ready and willing to pay for what they get. Cash is king.

ObamaCare will fail leaving millions without good care. Here, as everywhere else it is tried, free competitive markets succeed. Progressive socialism always fails. History is full of the debris.

Cash-Only Doctors Abandon the Insurance System
Source: Steve Hargreaves, "Cash-Only Doctors Abandon the Insurance System," CNN Money, June 11, 2013.
June 21, 2013

Fed up with declining payments and rising red tape, a small but growing number of doctors are opting out of the insurance system completely. They're expecting patients to pony up with cash. Some doctors who have gone this route love it, saying they can spend more time with and provide higher quality care to their patients. Health advocates are skeptical, worrying that only the wealthy will benefit from this system, says CNN Money.

Under the traditional health insurance system, a large staff was required just to navigate all the paperwork. That resulted in high overhead, forcing doctors to take on more patients to cover costs. In Wichita, Kan., 32-year-old family physician Doug Nunamaker switched to a cash-only basis in 2010 after taking insurance for five years.
  • Nunamaker and his partner set up a membership-based practice called Atlas M.D. -- a nod to free-market champion Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged.
  • Under the membership plan (also known as "concierge" medicine) each patient pays a flat monthly fee to have unlimited access to the doctors and any service they can provide in the office, such as EKGs or stitches.
  • The fee varies depending on age. For kids, it's $10 a month. For adults up to age 44, it's $50 a month. Senior citizens pay $100.
The office has negotiated deals for services outside the office. Nunamaker says he can get a cholesterol test done for $3, versus the $90 the lab company he works with once billed to insurance carriers. An MRI can be had for $400, compared to a typical billed rate of $2,000 or more.
  • Nunamaker encourages his patients to carry some type of high-deductible health insurance plan in case of an emergency or serious illness. But for the everyday stuff, he says his plan works better for both doctor and patient.
  • Nunamaker now has a patient list totaling 400 to 600, compared to the 2,500 to 4,000 he says a typical family physician usually maintains. And he's quite happy with his annual salary of around $200,000.
It's believed that only a small number of doctors have switched to a cash-only model. The American Academy of Family Physicians says about 4 percent of respondents to a 2012 survey reported taking only cash, up from 3 percent in 2010. A Medscape survey found 6 percent of physicians in the cash-only business in 2013, up from 4 percent in 2012. Most are primary care doctors, though not all.
Source: Steve Hargreaves, "Cash-Only Doctors Abandon the Insurance System," CNN Money, June 11, 2013.