The Senate unanimously passed a resolution yesterday apologizing for slavery, making way for a joint congressional resolution and the latest attempt by the federal government to take responsibility for 2 1/2 centuries of slavery.
"You wonder why we didn't do it 100 years ago," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), lead sponsor of the resolution, said after the unanimous-consent vote. "It is important to have a collective response to a collective injustice."
The Senate's apology follows a similar apology passed last year by the House. One key difference is that the Senate version explicitly deals with the long-simmering issue of whether slavery descendants are entitled to reparations, saying that the resolution cannot be used in support of claims for restitution. The House is expected to revisit the issue next week to conform its resolution to the Senate version.
Tashington, D.C. - The U.S. Senate resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation will be used as a lobbying tool to acquire reparations payments, say members of the black leadership network Project 21. The group urges the Senate to "move on," saying the apology will do little to heal perceived racial gaps.
On June 18, senators unanimously passed a resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation in the United States. While the resolution was written with the intention that it could not be used to support claims for monetary reparations, reparations activists Randall Robinson told the Washington Post the legislation constitutes a "confession" that will aid the process of acquiring reparations. Harvard professor Charles Ogletree said the resolution should not be a substitute for reparations, saying "That battle will be prolonged."
Jerry Brooks (Auburn, WA): "I'll accept the Senate's apology, but let's move on already. This apology is something that might have been more appropriate long ago, and now it's likely going to be misused by those with a political axe to grind. In particular and despite its intention to the contrary, it is already being used to promote reparations. Not only is this an idea without merit, but an extremely foolish one to be clinging to while our nation is trying to recover from its current economic distress."
Brooks continued, "I also take offense to the ignorant partisan attacks involved in this debate. In trying to infer Republicans are responsible for slavery is downright silly considering that the party came about as part of the movement to abolish slavery."
Jimmie L. Hollis (Millville, NJ): "As an American of African ancestry, I think this apology is ridiculous and useless. It is just another 'feel good' action. If we are to start apologizing for every injustice and wrong done in the past, we will spend the next few decades just apologizing. Let's move on."
Bob Parks (Athol, MA): "Why the need to do this now? Are we attempting to keep the First Lady proud of her country?"
Parks added, "The problem is that, when you apologize, it's important that the recipient knows the reason for the apology and who is giving it. It wasn't the entire Senate whose former party slogan was 'the White Man's Party' or fostered the Ku Klux Klan or resisted black civil rights efforts until it was realized just how the black voting bloc could be used for political advantage. But why the entire Senate is apologizing for evil past doings, once supported by the Democrat Party, is a mystery to me."
Randall Robinson, author of "The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks," said he sees the Senate's apology as a "confession" that should lead to a next step of reparations. "Much is owed, and it is very quantifiable," he said. "It is owed as one would owe for any labor that one has not paid for, and until steps are taken in that direction we haven't accomplished anything."
Cohen said he and Harkin worked closely with the NAACP and other civil rights groups on language that would not endorse or preclude any future claims to reparations. "It will not harm reparations but won't give any standing to it," Cohen said.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Saturday, June 13, 2009
“The Emperor Has No Clothes!”
“The Emperor Has No Clothes!” – Ominous Poll Numbers for Obama
Cataloguing Barack Obama’s mendacity is like attempting to isolate individual pellets during a driving hailstorm.
Each of his fabrications is astonishing in its sheer audacity, but quickly fades into anonymity amid the endless barrage. And because he issues them with such rapidity, the effect is a contagion of mass amnesia that soothes the fawning “watchdog” media and induces stupor among the public.
Obama’s preposterous “jobs saved or created” artifice is merely the latest vivid example.
In January, while advocating its proposed “stimulus” legislation, the White House issued a report warning that unless the bill was passed, unemployment could reach 8.5% by this month on its way to a peak of 8.8% in 2010. If the legislation was passed, on the other hand, the White House promised that unemployment would top out at 7.8% before steadily declining.
Obama also issued his absurd promise to “save or create” 3.5 million jobs, even though neither the Department of Labor nor any other governmental agency has any idea how to measure “jobs saved.”
Well. Congress passed Obama’s stimulus bill, but something has gone awry along the way. Since the date of passage, the American economy has lost approximately 1.6 million more jobs. And this month, the Department of Labor reported that the nation’s unemployment rate has reached 9.4%, some 1.6% higher than Obama’s expected peak.
So how did Obama respond?
By brazenly contending that he had somehow “saved or created” 150,000 new jobs, with 600,000 more coming this summer. Even the New York Times acknowledged that Obama’s concoction is “based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs.”
That makes sense, of course, since “an actual counting of jobs” would reveal that Obama’s promise was demonstrably false.
It appears, however, that we’re beginning to hear the steadily-increasing murmur that “the emperor has no clothes!”
That adage, of course, derives from the classic 1837 fairy tale The Emperor’s New Clothes by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen. In the story, the leader of a prosperous city habitually places greater emphasis upon his fashionability and popularity than upon sound leadership or effective governance.
Sound familiar?
Consumed by his frivolity, the emperor unwittingly hires two swindlers who convince him that they can produce the finest suit from the most exquisite fabric. The swindlers tell the emperor that the cloth is so elegant that it is invisible to stupid and incompetent people. When the emperor finally receives word that his new suit is finished and goes to try it on, however, he cannot see anything. Afraid of exposing themselves as stupid or incompetent by being unable to see it, the emperor and his ministers simply pretend to be awestricken by the non-existent new suit.
Oblivious to the swindle, the emperor proudly proceeds to exhibit his new “clothes” to the town. Afraid to speak up, the town’s citizens similarly pretend to see the wonderful suit, until an undaunted child exclaims, “the emperor has nothing on!” Although the crowd realizes that the child is correct, the emperor continues in his vain oblivion.
Andersen’s tale about exposing the emptiness and pretensions of the ruling class is obviously instructive today. From his “jobs saved or created” fiction to his assertion that he has no interest in running an automobile company while he does precisely that, the sycophantic media imitates the timid townspeople.
Accordingly, we await the collective realization that Emperor Obama has no clothes. But the murmur appears to be getting steadily more audible.
After Obama delivered his latest “American Apology Tour ‘09” address in Cairo, for instance, an observer in the United Arab Emirates noted, “he seems to say everything without actually promising anything.”
And here in the United States, scientific surveys provide ominous news for Obama. For the first time, a June 5, 2009 Rasmussen poll revealed that Obama’s “strong disapproval” percentage has equaled his “strong approval” rating at 34% apiece. To provide perspective, Obama enjoyed a +28% margin the day after entering office, with 44% strongly approving and only 16% strongly disapproving.
And in Europe, voters this week overwhelmingly rejected left-leaning and socialist candidates. It appears that people who have actually seen socialism in practice have developed a distaste for it. Foreign leaders such as Israel’s Netanyahu, France’s Sarkozy and Germany’s Merkel have already begun to criticize Obama’s directives, and this week’s election results portend even greater friction.
The chorus of people pointing out the emptiness and pretensions of Obama’s agenda is growing larger, and the consensus that the emperor has no clothes draws nearer.
Cataloguing Barack Obama’s mendacity is like attempting to isolate individual pellets during a driving hailstorm.
Each of his fabrications is astonishing in its sheer audacity, but quickly fades into anonymity amid the endless barrage. And because he issues them with such rapidity, the effect is a contagion of mass amnesia that soothes the fawning “watchdog” media and induces stupor among the public.
Obama’s preposterous “jobs saved or created” artifice is merely the latest vivid example.
In January, while advocating its proposed “stimulus” legislation, the White House issued a report warning that unless the bill was passed, unemployment could reach 8.5% by this month on its way to a peak of 8.8% in 2010. If the legislation was passed, on the other hand, the White House promised that unemployment would top out at 7.8% before steadily declining.
Obama also issued his absurd promise to “save or create” 3.5 million jobs, even though neither the Department of Labor nor any other governmental agency has any idea how to measure “jobs saved.”
Well. Congress passed Obama’s stimulus bill, but something has gone awry along the way. Since the date of passage, the American economy has lost approximately 1.6 million more jobs. And this month, the Department of Labor reported that the nation’s unemployment rate has reached 9.4%, some 1.6% higher than Obama’s expected peak.
So how did Obama respond?
By brazenly contending that he had somehow “saved or created” 150,000 new jobs, with 600,000 more coming this summer. Even the New York Times acknowledged that Obama’s concoction is “based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs.”
That makes sense, of course, since “an actual counting of jobs” would reveal that Obama’s promise was demonstrably false.
It appears, however, that we’re beginning to hear the steadily-increasing murmur that “the emperor has no clothes!”
That adage, of course, derives from the classic 1837 fairy tale The Emperor’s New Clothes by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen. In the story, the leader of a prosperous city habitually places greater emphasis upon his fashionability and popularity than upon sound leadership or effective governance.
Sound familiar?
Consumed by his frivolity, the emperor unwittingly hires two swindlers who convince him that they can produce the finest suit from the most exquisite fabric. The swindlers tell the emperor that the cloth is so elegant that it is invisible to stupid and incompetent people. When the emperor finally receives word that his new suit is finished and goes to try it on, however, he cannot see anything. Afraid of exposing themselves as stupid or incompetent by being unable to see it, the emperor and his ministers simply pretend to be awestricken by the non-existent new suit.
Oblivious to the swindle, the emperor proudly proceeds to exhibit his new “clothes” to the town. Afraid to speak up, the town’s citizens similarly pretend to see the wonderful suit, until an undaunted child exclaims, “the emperor has nothing on!” Although the crowd realizes that the child is correct, the emperor continues in his vain oblivion.
Andersen’s tale about exposing the emptiness and pretensions of the ruling class is obviously instructive today. From his “jobs saved or created” fiction to his assertion that he has no interest in running an automobile company while he does precisely that, the sycophantic media imitates the timid townspeople.
Accordingly, we await the collective realization that Emperor Obama has no clothes. But the murmur appears to be getting steadily more audible.
After Obama delivered his latest “American Apology Tour ‘09” address in Cairo, for instance, an observer in the United Arab Emirates noted, “he seems to say everything without actually promising anything.”
And here in the United States, scientific surveys provide ominous news for Obama. For the first time, a June 5, 2009 Rasmussen poll revealed that Obama’s “strong disapproval” percentage has equaled his “strong approval” rating at 34% apiece. To provide perspective, Obama enjoyed a +28% margin the day after entering office, with 44% strongly approving and only 16% strongly disapproving.
And in Europe, voters this week overwhelmingly rejected left-leaning and socialist candidates. It appears that people who have actually seen socialism in practice have developed a distaste for it. Foreign leaders such as Israel’s Netanyahu, France’s Sarkozy and Germany’s Merkel have already begun to criticize Obama’s directives, and this week’s election results portend even greater friction.
The chorus of people pointing out the emptiness and pretensions of Obama’s agenda is growing larger, and the consensus that the emperor has no clothes draws nearer.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
This was an excellent article and worth reading- Thanks Jonah Goldberg
The government effectively owns General Motors and controls Chrysler, and the president is deciding what kind of cars they can make. Uncle Sam owns majority stakes in American International Group, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and controls large chunks of the banking industry. Also, President Obama wants government to take over the business of student loans. And he's pushing for nationalized health care. Meanwhile, his Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that it reserves the right to regulate any economic activity that has a "carbon footprint." Just last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said climate change requires that "every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory." Rep. Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, has his eye on regulating executive pay.Of course, nationalization of industry is only one kind of socialism; another approach is to simply redistribute the nation's income as economic planners see fit. But wait, Obama believes in that, too. That's why he said during the campaign that he wants to "spread the wealth" and that's why he did exactly that when he got elected. (He spread the debt, too.)
And yet, for conservatives to suggest in any way, shape or form that there's something "socialistic" about any of this is the cause of knee-slapping hilarity for liberal pundits and bloggers everywhere.
For instance, last month the Republican National Committee considered a resolution calling on the Democratic Party to rename itself the "Democrat Socialist Party." The resolution was killed by RNC Chairman Michael Steele in favor of the supposedly milder condemnation of the Democrats' "march toward socialism."
THE HOPE FOR SOCIALISM
The whole spectacle was just too funny for liberal observers. Robert Schlesinger, U.S. News & World Report's opinion editor, was a typical giggler. He chortled, "What's really both funny and scary about all of this is how seriously the fringe-nuts in the GOP take it."
Putting aside the funny and scary notion that it's "funny and scary" for political professionals to take weighty political issues seriously, there are some fundamental problems with all of this disdain. For starters, why do liberals routinely suggest, even hope, that Obama and the Democrats are leading us into an age of socialism, or social democracy or democratic socialism? (One source of confusion is that these terms are routinely used interchangeably.)
For instance, in a fawning interview with President Obama, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham mocks Obama's critics for considering Obama to be a "crypto-socialist." This, of course, would be the same Jon Meacham who last February co-authored a cover story with Newsweek's editor at large (and grandson of the six-time presidential candidate for the American Socialist Party) Evan Thomas titled -- wait for it -- "We Are All Socialists Now," in which they argued that the growth of government was making us like a "European," i.e. socialist, country.
Washington Post columnists Jim Hoagland (a centrist), E.J. Dionne (a liberal) and Harold Meyerson (very, very liberal) have all suggested that Obama intentionally or otherwise is putting us on the path to "social democracy." Left-wing blogger and Democratic activist Matthew Yglesias last fall hoped that the financial crisis offered a "real opportunity" for "massive socialism." Polling done by Rasmussen -- and touted by Meyerson -- shows that while Republicans favor "capitalism" over "socialism" by 11 to 1, Democrats favor capitalism by a mere 39 percent to 30 percent. So, again: Is it really crazy to think that there is a constituency for some flavor of socialism in the Democratic Party?
When the question is aimed at them like an accusation, liberals roll their eyes at such "paranoia." They say Obama is merely reviving "New Deal economics" to "save" or "reform" capitalism. But liberals themselves have long seen this approach as the best way to incrementally bring about a European-style, social democratic welfare state. As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. (Robert's father) wrote in 1947, "There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals."
WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE
Part of the problem here is definitional. No mainstream liberal actually wants government to completely seize the means of production, and no mainstream conservative believes that there's no room for any government regulation or social insurance. Both sides believe in a "mixed economy" but disagree profoundly about where to draw the line. One definition of social democracy is the peaceful, democratic transition to socialism. A second is simply a large European welfare state where the state owns some, and guides the rest, of the economy. Many liberals yearn for the latter and say so often -- but fume when conservatives take them at their word.
Personally, I think socialism is the wrong word for all of this. "Corporatism" -- the economic doctrine of fascism -- fits better. Under corporatism, all the big players in the economy -- big business, unions, interest groups -- sit around the table with government at the head, hashing out what they think is best for everyone to the detriment of consumers, markets and entrepreneurs. But, take it from me, liberals are far more open to the argument that they're "crypto-socialists."
The government effectively owns General Motors and controls Chrysler, and the president is deciding what kind of cars they can make. Uncle Sam owns majority stakes in American International Group, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and controls large chunks of the banking industry. Also, President Obama wants government to take over the business of student loans. And he's pushing for nationalized health care. Meanwhile, his Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that it reserves the right to regulate any economic activity that has a "carbon footprint." Just last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said climate change requires that "every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory." Rep. Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, has his eye on regulating executive pay.Of course, nationalization of industry is only one kind of socialism; another approach is to simply redistribute the nation's income as economic planners see fit. But wait, Obama believes in that, too. That's why he said during the campaign that he wants to "spread the wealth" and that's why he did exactly that when he got elected. (He spread the debt, too.)
And yet, for conservatives to suggest in any way, shape or form that there's something "socialistic" about any of this is the cause of knee-slapping hilarity for liberal pundits and bloggers everywhere.
For instance, last month the Republican National Committee considered a resolution calling on the Democratic Party to rename itself the "Democrat Socialist Party." The resolution was killed by RNC Chairman Michael Steele in favor of the supposedly milder condemnation of the Democrats' "march toward socialism."
THE HOPE FOR SOCIALISM
The whole spectacle was just too funny for liberal observers. Robert Schlesinger, U.S. News & World Report's opinion editor, was a typical giggler. He chortled, "What's really both funny and scary about all of this is how seriously the fringe-nuts in the GOP take it."
Putting aside the funny and scary notion that it's "funny and scary" for political professionals to take weighty political issues seriously, there are some fundamental problems with all of this disdain. For starters, why do liberals routinely suggest, even hope, that Obama and the Democrats are leading us into an age of socialism, or social democracy or democratic socialism? (One source of confusion is that these terms are routinely used interchangeably.)
For instance, in a fawning interview with President Obama, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham mocks Obama's critics for considering Obama to be a "crypto-socialist." This, of course, would be the same Jon Meacham who last February co-authored a cover story with Newsweek's editor at large (and grandson of the six-time presidential candidate for the American Socialist Party) Evan Thomas titled -- wait for it -- "We Are All Socialists Now," in which they argued that the growth of government was making us like a "European," i.e. socialist, country.
Washington Post columnists Jim Hoagland (a centrist), E.J. Dionne (a liberal) and Harold Meyerson (very, very liberal) have all suggested that Obama intentionally or otherwise is putting us on the path to "social democracy." Left-wing blogger and Democratic activist Matthew Yglesias last fall hoped that the financial crisis offered a "real opportunity" for "massive socialism." Polling done by Rasmussen -- and touted by Meyerson -- shows that while Republicans favor "capitalism" over "socialism" by 11 to 1, Democrats favor capitalism by a mere 39 percent to 30 percent. So, again: Is it really crazy to think that there is a constituency for some flavor of socialism in the Democratic Party?
When the question is aimed at them like an accusation, liberals roll their eyes at such "paranoia." They say Obama is merely reviving "New Deal economics" to "save" or "reform" capitalism. But liberals themselves have long seen this approach as the best way to incrementally bring about a European-style, social democratic welfare state. As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. (Robert's father) wrote in 1947, "There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals."
WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE
Part of the problem here is definitional. No mainstream liberal actually wants government to completely seize the means of production, and no mainstream conservative believes that there's no room for any government regulation or social insurance. Both sides believe in a "mixed economy" but disagree profoundly about where to draw the line. One definition of social democracy is the peaceful, democratic transition to socialism. A second is simply a large European welfare state where the state owns some, and guides the rest, of the economy. Many liberals yearn for the latter and say so often -- but fume when conservatives take them at their word.
Personally, I think socialism is the wrong word for all of this. "Corporatism" -- the economic doctrine of fascism -- fits better. Under corporatism, all the big players in the economy -- big business, unions, interest groups -- sit around the table with government at the head, hashing out what they think is best for everyone to the detriment of consumers, markets and entrepreneurs. But, take it from me, liberals are far more open to the argument that they're "crypto-socialists."
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
A Soda Tax To Pay For Obama-Care?
A Soda Tax To Pay For Obama-Care?
So as described in the news today the same government that stated that Social Security will be insolvent by 2031 and medicare a government run health care will be insolvent by 2017, and not to mention VA hospitals which are among the worst health care in the country also government run, now they want to run the entire health care system? This is like asking GM to run the oil companies too.
Late last year, New York Governor David Paterson proposed a 15% "obesity tax" on non-diet soda to help close the state budget gap. The idea was so unpopular, Paterson had to axe the idea in March. Despite the warning, Democrats in congress, determined to find a way to pay for Barack Obama's ridiculous health care plan, are considering a federal tax on soda and other sugary beverages. Right now the number being thrown out is 3 cents for every 12 fluid ounces of those sinful sugary beverages, but we don't know how big a tax they are considering. Early estimates put the cost of Obama's health care plan at about $1.2 trillion... but such plans always cost more than the estimates, so, expect that number to grow, as well as the size of the proposed soda tax. Just as Governor Paterson had to find another way to close the budget gap, I suspect hat Barack Obama will have to find other ways to pay for his health care plan. A Rasmussen poll from earlier this year showed that 70% of Americans oppose a tax increase on soda. Supporters of the tax argue about the health benefits.
Proponents of the tax cite research showing that consuming sugar-sweetened drinks can lead to obesity, diabetes and other ailments. They say the tax would lower consumption, reduce health problems and save medical costs. At least a dozen states already have some type of taxes on sugary beverages, said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
We've heard similar argument about raising taxes on tobacco products. But, let's not be fooled. the motivation of the tax is to collect more revenue, and consumers who want soda will drink their soda... And guess who will be hit hard with this tax increase? Lower-income Americans. So, while Barack Obama promise tax cuts for 95% of Americans, with proposals like these, most Americans will find the small increase in their pay check will be quickly offset and eclipsed by higher taxes they pay at the supermarket and elsewhere on products Big Brother says isn't good for them. And it doesn't end with soda and other sugary beverages.
Health advocates are floating other so-called sin tax proposals and food regulations as part of the government's health-care overhaul. Mr. Jacobson also plans to propose Tuesday that the government sharply raise taxes on alcohol, move to largely eliminate artificial trans fat from food and move to reduce the sodium content in packaged and restaurant food.
The beverage tax is just one of hundreds of ideas that lawmakers are weighing to finance the health-care plans. They're expected to narrow the list in coming weeks.
Hear than? Hundreds of ideas to raise your taxes. If it's not sugar it is alcohol, trans fat, salt... anything the government says is bad for you they will consider taxing, to pay for Obama's health care plan... which they think will cost only 1.2 trillion now... don't be surprised if that estimates goes up signifcantly, and many of those "hundreds of ideas" to raise your taxes that are being weighed will become a reality... if we don't stop it.
So as described in the news today the same government that stated that Social Security will be insolvent by 2031 and medicare a government run health care will be insolvent by 2017, and not to mention VA hospitals which are among the worst health care in the country also government run, now they want to run the entire health care system? This is like asking GM to run the oil companies too.
Late last year, New York Governor David Paterson proposed a 15% "obesity tax" on non-diet soda to help close the state budget gap. The idea was so unpopular, Paterson had to axe the idea in March. Despite the warning, Democrats in congress, determined to find a way to pay for Barack Obama's ridiculous health care plan, are considering a federal tax on soda and other sugary beverages. Right now the number being thrown out is 3 cents for every 12 fluid ounces of those sinful sugary beverages, but we don't know how big a tax they are considering. Early estimates put the cost of Obama's health care plan at about $1.2 trillion... but such plans always cost more than the estimates, so, expect that number to grow, as well as the size of the proposed soda tax. Just as Governor Paterson had to find another way to close the budget gap, I suspect hat Barack Obama will have to find other ways to pay for his health care plan. A Rasmussen poll from earlier this year showed that 70% of Americans oppose a tax increase on soda. Supporters of the tax argue about the health benefits.
Proponents of the tax cite research showing that consuming sugar-sweetened drinks can lead to obesity, diabetes and other ailments. They say the tax would lower consumption, reduce health problems and save medical costs. At least a dozen states already have some type of taxes on sugary beverages, said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
We've heard similar argument about raising taxes on tobacco products. But, let's not be fooled. the motivation of the tax is to collect more revenue, and consumers who want soda will drink their soda... And guess who will be hit hard with this tax increase? Lower-income Americans. So, while Barack Obama promise tax cuts for 95% of Americans, with proposals like these, most Americans will find the small increase in their pay check will be quickly offset and eclipsed by higher taxes they pay at the supermarket and elsewhere on products Big Brother says isn't good for them. And it doesn't end with soda and other sugary beverages.
Health advocates are floating other so-called sin tax proposals and food regulations as part of the government's health-care overhaul. Mr. Jacobson also plans to propose Tuesday that the government sharply raise taxes on alcohol, move to largely eliminate artificial trans fat from food and move to reduce the sodium content in packaged and restaurant food.
The beverage tax is just one of hundreds of ideas that lawmakers are weighing to finance the health-care plans. They're expected to narrow the list in coming weeks.
Hear than? Hundreds of ideas to raise your taxes. If it's not sugar it is alcohol, trans fat, salt... anything the government says is bad for you they will consider taxing, to pay for Obama's health care plan... which they think will cost only 1.2 trillion now... don't be surprised if that estimates goes up signifcantly, and many of those "hundreds of ideas" to raise your taxes that are being weighed will become a reality... if we don't stop it.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Why Obamacare will NOT work
New Public Plan “Option” Will Not Improve America’s
Health Care
Health care reform is becoming a major topic of discussion in Washington. In particular, there has been a lot of talk about creating a new public plan “option” to compete with private insurance plans. But there is one major problem: there is no such thing as a fair competition when the government is both a competitor, and the referee.
The creation of a public plan would allow the federal government to both compete in the market (by having its own plan), and to regulate that same market (by making the laws that govern it). In the absence of a level playing field, a public plan would increasingly crowd out private health care options, paving the way to a single-payer, or government-controlled, health care system.
Read More:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/upload/bg_2267.pdf
Health Care
Health care reform is becoming a major topic of discussion in Washington. In particular, there has been a lot of talk about creating a new public plan “option” to compete with private insurance plans. But there is one major problem: there is no such thing as a fair competition when the government is both a competitor, and the referee.
The creation of a public plan would allow the federal government to both compete in the market (by having its own plan), and to regulate that same market (by making the laws that govern it). In the absence of a level playing field, a public plan would increasingly crowd out private health care options, paving the way to a single-payer, or government-controlled, health care system.
Read More:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/upload/bg_2267.pdf
Friday, May 8, 2009
Union NON disclosure? Who Obama really works for
Fifty years ago, Congress passed the landmark Landrum-Griffin Act to protect rank-and-file union members from malfeasance by union leaders. Senate hearings had uncovered serious corruption and other unethical practices inside the labor movement, and a bipartisan coalition emerged to shine the light of disclosure on union practices.
Nevertheless, Democrats in Congress and in the executive branch have often attempted to undercut that law's financial reporting and disclosure requirements. Prior to reforms adopted in the George W. Bush administration, for example, one union could get away with reporting a $62 million expenditure as nothing more than "contributions, gifts, and grants to local affiliates" -- with no further explanation. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is already showing that it wants to return to this nontransparent standard of financial disclosure.
Within days of the inauguration, the new leadership at the Labor Department moved to delay implementing a regulation finalized in January that would have shed much needed light on how union managers compensate themselves with union dues. The regulation required disclosure of receipts for expenditures and for the purchase and sale of union assets -- disclosures that would help deter embezzlement.
The Labor Department's Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS), created to enforce the 1959 law, also recently announced that it would not enforce compliance with the conflict-of-interest disclosure form (the "LM-30" form) that was revised in 2007. Labor's Web site states that "it would not be a good use of resources."
Instead, union managers will be able to file decades-old, less enlightening disclosure forms while the department considers whether to "revise" (i.e., gut) the current disclosure requirements. But what could be a better use of department resources than enforcing the laws under its jurisdiction?
From 2001-2008, the Labor Department secured more than 1,000 union fraud-related indictments and 929 convictions. This enforcement record was accomplished even though the enforcement office accounts for less than 0.1% of the department's budget. OLMS is the lone federal agency with the job of protecting worker interests in how their unions are managed. The last Congress increased President Bush's budget request for the Labor Department by $956 million even as it targeted OLMS for a budget cut.
Union membership peaked in the 1950s, when more than one-third of American workers belonged to a union. Today, just 7.6% of American private-sector workers belong to a union. A Rasmussen Research survey conducted in March found that 81% of nonunion members do not want to belong to a union.
The response by union leaders and their Democratic allies to declining union membership is the Employee Free Choice Act. To increase unionization, it would deprive workers of private balloting in organizing elections, and it would substitute a signature-card process that would expose workers to coercion. The bill would also deny workers the right to ratify, or not ratify, labor contracts drafted by government arbitrators when negotiations in newly unionized workplaces exceed the bill's rigid timetable.
The Obama administration likes to say that it is "pro-worker." But something is amiss when its labor priorities are forcing unionization and labor contracts on American workplaces, and denying union members information on how their dues money is spent.
Nevertheless, Democrats in Congress and in the executive branch have often attempted to undercut that law's financial reporting and disclosure requirements. Prior to reforms adopted in the George W. Bush administration, for example, one union could get away with reporting a $62 million expenditure as nothing more than "contributions, gifts, and grants to local affiliates" -- with no further explanation. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is already showing that it wants to return to this nontransparent standard of financial disclosure.
Within days of the inauguration, the new leadership at the Labor Department moved to delay implementing a regulation finalized in January that would have shed much needed light on how union managers compensate themselves with union dues. The regulation required disclosure of receipts for expenditures and for the purchase and sale of union assets -- disclosures that would help deter embezzlement.
The Labor Department's Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS), created to enforce the 1959 law, also recently announced that it would not enforce compliance with the conflict-of-interest disclosure form (the "LM-30" form) that was revised in 2007. Labor's Web site states that "it would not be a good use of resources."
Instead, union managers will be able to file decades-old, less enlightening disclosure forms while the department considers whether to "revise" (i.e., gut) the current disclosure requirements. But what could be a better use of department resources than enforcing the laws under its jurisdiction?
From 2001-2008, the Labor Department secured more than 1,000 union fraud-related indictments and 929 convictions. This enforcement record was accomplished even though the enforcement office accounts for less than 0.1% of the department's budget. OLMS is the lone federal agency with the job of protecting worker interests in how their unions are managed. The last Congress increased President Bush's budget request for the Labor Department by $956 million even as it targeted OLMS for a budget cut.
Union membership peaked in the 1950s, when more than one-third of American workers belonged to a union. Today, just 7.6% of American private-sector workers belong to a union. A Rasmussen Research survey conducted in March found that 81% of nonunion members do not want to belong to a union.
The response by union leaders and their Democratic allies to declining union membership is the Employee Free Choice Act. To increase unionization, it would deprive workers of private balloting in organizing elections, and it would substitute a signature-card process that would expose workers to coercion. The bill would also deny workers the right to ratify, or not ratify, labor contracts drafted by government arbitrators when negotiations in newly unionized workplaces exceed the bill's rigid timetable.
The Obama administration likes to say that it is "pro-worker." But something is amiss when its labor priorities are forcing unionization and labor contracts on American workplaces, and denying union members information on how their dues money is spent.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
First 100 days of Socialism
President Obama’s $3.69 trillion budget will raise taxes on all Americans by $1.4 trillion over the next decade, and will permanently elevate federal spending to nearly 23 percent of the entire economy by 2019—a level reached only three times since the end of World War II.
• The President’s budget dumps a staggering $9.3 trillion in new debt—$68,000 per household—into the laps of America's children and grandchildren. This is more debt than has been accumulated by all previous Presidents in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush—combined.
• President Obama ordered his cabinet to identify and shave a collective $100 MILLION in administrative costs from their budgets after proposing 40,000 times that in his budget and spending bills.
• The President’s budget proposes a $646 billion cap-and-trade tax that energy companies would immediately pass on to all consumers, including those earning less than $250,000.
Impact on Foreign Policy
• The President approved a cut of 15 percent of the Pentagon’s budget for missile defense and abandoning deploying defenses in Western Europe.
• Both President Obama and the Secretary of Homeland Security have been reticent to discuss the threat of terrorism, and Administration officials have issued a plethora of ambivalent and contradictory statements on homeland security and counterterrorism policies.
• The President declared that “50 years” of US policy had not worked as justification for reversing long-standing U.S. policies to isolate the Cuban dictatorship.
• President Obama’s Justice Department released documents on terrorist interrogation tactics used by the CIA after 9/11, yet refused to declassify and release additional material that describes the full scope and context of the program, including the effectiveness of the CIA interrogations.
Impact on Domestic Policy
• The President took over General Motors by firing the CEO.
• President Obama put the breaks on cheaper energy by delaying the opportunity to expand domestic supply through offshore drilling.
• The Obama Administration took the first official step towards federal regulation of carbon dioxide (the gas we exhale) by having the Environmental Protection Agency declare carbon dioxide dangerous to human health and the environment.
• The President’s budget dumps a staggering $9.3 trillion in new debt—$68,000 per household—into the laps of America's children and grandchildren. This is more debt than has been accumulated by all previous Presidents in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush—combined.
• President Obama ordered his cabinet to identify and shave a collective $100 MILLION in administrative costs from their budgets after proposing 40,000 times that in his budget and spending bills.
• The President’s budget proposes a $646 billion cap-and-trade tax that energy companies would immediately pass on to all consumers, including those earning less than $250,000.
Impact on Foreign Policy
• The President approved a cut of 15 percent of the Pentagon’s budget for missile defense and abandoning deploying defenses in Western Europe.
• Both President Obama and the Secretary of Homeland Security have been reticent to discuss the threat of terrorism, and Administration officials have issued a plethora of ambivalent and contradictory statements on homeland security and counterterrorism policies.
• The President declared that “50 years” of US policy had not worked as justification for reversing long-standing U.S. policies to isolate the Cuban dictatorship.
• President Obama’s Justice Department released documents on terrorist interrogation tactics used by the CIA after 9/11, yet refused to declassify and release additional material that describes the full scope and context of the program, including the effectiveness of the CIA interrogations.
Impact on Domestic Policy
• The President took over General Motors by firing the CEO.
• President Obama put the breaks on cheaper energy by delaying the opportunity to expand domestic supply through offshore drilling.
• The Obama Administration took the first official step towards federal regulation of carbon dioxide (the gas we exhale) by having the Environmental Protection Agency declare carbon dioxide dangerous to human health and the environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)