tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-80524212274033331332024-03-05T00:08:26.079-05:00Bayley Hazen BlogUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger124125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-66055313234639274702014-05-17T15:50:00.001-04:002014-05-17T15:50:34.510-04:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
A 1972 Jeep Wagoneer Costing $66,000</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The Vermont General Assembly passed a bill which would shut off local taxpayers' choice to determine how to run their local schools, by placing a moratorium on local citizens' ability to close their local school and open an independent school, like North Bennington did last year. </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
My husband and I bought a Jeep Wagoneer in 1972. It had the latest technology. We had four wheel drive, but we had to get out of the car and adjust each front wheel hub in order to engage the four wheel drive. Its average fuel economy was 11.4 MPG. We had a radio, but no tape player, no CD player, no blue tooth. We had lap belts in the front seat. There were no air bags, no navigation systems, no automatic windows, no rear window defrost, not even any cup holders. The vehicle began rusting after a year, and the rust became so bad after four years the vehicle would not pass inspection. The car cost about $4000, or, in today's inflation adjusted price: $22,384. No consumer today would buy a vehicle with so few amenities and such a short life span for $22,000.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In 1972, the cost per pupil from kindergarten to grade 12 was $9,800, or approximately $55,000 in today's dollars. The cost per pupil today, for that same education, is $165,000, three times the inflation adjusted 1972 cost.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Yet the achievement scores for American students have remained virtually unchanged since 1972. It would be like requiring consumers to buy a Jeep Wagoneer, with 1972 technology, for three times the price: an inflation adjusted $66,000.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The educational product for our children has not improved in 40 years, yet we are asked to pay three times the price for the same results.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
That is why Vermonters are rejecting school budgets in droves.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Vermonters are generous people, but they are also savvy consumers. They understand that they are not getting a good product for the price of their children¡¦s education.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The Education Establishment has made excuses for this trend. Instead of taking responsibility for the high cost and mediocre results of their educational product, they blame the customers. St. Johnsbury Superintendent Randy Bledsoe, in a stunning insult to the children she works for and their parents who pay her salary, told Vermont Public Radio that "a lot" of St. Johnsbury students are not "socialized"; therefore it takes more money to teach them.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Really? Let's look back at 1972. We had just ended the Vietnam War. We were at the end of a turbulent era of desegregation of the public schools, anti-war and race riots, a huge increase in drug use and increasing crime. Indeed, the overall crime rate in 1972 was nearly 25% higher than it was in 2012.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Parents in 1972 had grown up during the worst depression in world history, and fathers of 1972 students had served in the most catastrophic war in history: World War II-- where 60 million people died, followed by two other major wars. Families struggled with death, disability and PTSD without the assistance of psychotropic and anti- depressant drugs or widespread availability of therapy. Poverty and hunger and poor shelter were far more widespread than today.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Yet despite the disasters and catastrophes that plagued many families in mid 20th century America, their children were able to achieve academic success comparable to today's students, at 1/3 the cost. Other consumer services and products have improved dramatically in quality, often at a lower cost, since 1972. Why not the education service sector?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Here are a few reasons:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li> Powerful teacher's unions have shifted the focus from education of their students to teacher compensation, benefits, lower class sizes and more teacher's aides and professional staff without any discernible effect on the academic achievement of their students.</li>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Washington and Montpelier have placed more mandates and requirements on both teachers and administrators, resulting in costly distractions from the job of teaching children. It is the unrelenting trajectory of government to discover never-ending problems for which more government money and control are always the solution. The Educational Establishment is Exhibit 1.</li>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>The monopoly nature of our education system inevitably results in higher costs and lower quality. Americans have always recognized that monopolies are bad for consumers. We learned in school that the big oil and railroad monopolies of the early 20th century resulted in huge price increases, corruption in government, and over- concentration of power. Educational monopolies have similarly resulted in huge price increases, the corrupting influence of the teacher's unions on elected officials, and the concentration of power in Montpelier and Washington.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
Now the monopolists in Montpelier want to shut down any competition. Vermont has had a competitive educational structure for 150 years with independent schools like St. Johnsbury Academy and Lyndon Institute, school choice for 90 towns in the state, and local options to choose to turn government schools into independent schools. The Educational Establishment started to push this year to shut off those options, and have partially succeed with the General Assembly vote. Why? The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that independent schools provide better education at lower cost than many government schools in Vermont. Independent schools are certainly not "problems" that government needs to solve. The reason Montpelier wants to shut off these options is that the bureaucrats and politicians believe that the local voters and parents should not be making decisions about education. After all, their children are not even "socialized¨.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Monopolies hate competition. It causes them to work to be more efficient and produce a better product at lower cost. That takes hard work.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
We need to not only keep the competitive nature of Vermont education system, but expand voters' and parents' options for Vermont children's education. The Educational Establishment has won round one with this latest vote. Voters need to let their Senators and Representatives know that they want to keep educational choice in Vermont schools.</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-9202700674855202422013-07-21T12:44:00.002-04:002013-07-21T12:44:30.535-04:00Rep. Michelle Fay Slanders Her Constituents <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang="EN"><div align="CENTER" dir="LTR">
</div>
<br />
<div align="CENTER" dir="LTR">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
In a June 25th article in the Caledonian Record, St. Johnsbury Representative, Democrat Michelle Fay, was asked the reasons why there is a higher ratio of registered sex offenders in the Northeast Kingdom. Other elected officials had indicated that the reason was likely as a result of the services provided to furloughed and paroled offenders in the area because of the location of the correctional facilities in St. Johnsbury and Newport--thus attracting such offenders to the area for treatment. Rep. Fay would have none of that explanation. In a remarkable slam against the people who voted her into office, she said that "violence against women and children is cultural" and the "NEK's [poverty and] isolation seem to nurture the underlying beliefs and attitudes of these crimes." Ms. Fay's sentiments spoken to the Caledonian Record were not offhand remarks. They are precisely the views she has espoused since she became CEO of Umbrella, Inc., a domestic violence prevention organization, more than ten years ago. Indeed she doubled down on those sentiments in an letter to the editor on July 3<sup>rd</sup>, exhorting us all to "get serious about making our communities safe". <br />
<br />
There are two problems with St. Johnsbury's Representative's statements. First, Rep. Fay's statement reflects her fixed belief that "violence against women and children" is an integral part of the culture of the district she represents. This is symptomatic of those who, like Ms. Fay, earn their living from government grants or government employment. Unlike the private sector, the people and organizations funded by taxpayers have an disincentive to eradicate or even reduce the problems they are paid to solve; otherwise if they did, they would be out of a job. Thirty years ago organizations helping abused women and children, like Umbrella, were volunteer groups with no public funding. Fast forward to thirty years later, and Umbrella's budget alone (as of 2010--there is no more recent public information) for domestic violence is nearly $600,000, almost all of it in government funding. If the problem of domestic violence were reduced or eradicated, that $600,000 would be decreased or disappear. Hence Ms. Fay and the thousands of others who work in the domestic violence field have no impetus to report any progress in the reduction in domestic violence. Not surprisingly, they have claimed no progress. Nationwide domestic violence statistics show that for the year 2012, $4 billion—paid mostly by taxpayers-- was spent on prevention. Yet Department of Justice statistics also show that in 1994-1995, "about 25 percent of women and 7.6 percent of men are raped or physically assaulted by their spouse, partner, or dating partner in their lifetime." In 2012 a New York Times article on domestic violence reported exactly the same statistics. Nothing has apparently changed in nearly 20 years. Moreover, in 2008 Human Rights Watch claimed that the rates of domestic violence in the United States were "soaring". Despite the multiple billions spent over the last 30 years to reduce domestic violence, the problem has, to those in the field, remained intractable, and even increased. If a private company had that track record, it would have been out of business long ago.<br />
<br />
However, not surprisingly, Ms. Fay does not blame herself or her organization for these dismal statistics. She blames the community. According to her, we<i> </i>all need to get serious about domestic violence. </div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
<br />
The second problem is related, and even more troubling. Notice who Rep. Fay considers victims: Women and children. Men are not victims; ergo, they are the violent predators in Rep. Fay's worldview. In this chilling perception of her constituency where men are the perpetrators of violence and women are ignorant victims, Rep. Fay deprecates the male half of those whom she represents and belittles the female half.<br />
<br />
Fixed beliefs are often false, and Ms. Fay's beliefs about her NEK constituents are no exception. I have been working with families in crisis in the NEK for almost 35 years--far longer than Rep. Fay-- and the Vermonters I have met and worked with over the last three and one half decades are far different than Rep. Fay's sour and patronizing portrait of her constituents. Here is what I have observed of the families I have had the privilege to meet and represent: Men and women who moved here not for its "isolation" , but to raise their children in a quiet, small town environment close to nature--and many more men and women who grew up here and stayed because they love our beautiful state and the family and community values they want to impart to their children. Vermonters live here because it is a place to raise a family.<br />
<br />
Families who live here are not victims or violent predators, as Ms. Fay believes, but, in my experience, overwhelmingly extraordinary people. Men and women who struggle with a family member’s mental illness, physical disease, emotional distress, or death of their loved ones with grace and courage. Men who raise children alone, and men who work with their children's mothers with decency and honor. Women who have been left with responsibilities at a too young an age with no one to help, who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and gone on to successful careers. Countless men and women who have overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles. People who have quietly performed innumerable acts of extraordinary kindness and charity towards family, friends and strangers. Men and women who work hard to support their families and make sure their children live a better life than they have experienced. Enterprising men and women who contribute countless benefits to their families, employees and communities. Grace, decency, courage, kindness and an independent spirit permeate the culture of the Northeast Kingdom.</div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
Ms. Fay's beliefs reflect today’s orthodox liberal ideology. Liberals view Americans as immature victims needing a nanny state to regulate how they live, raise and educate their children, take care of their health, protect their families, and plan for their retirement. Ms. Fay's blindness about the kindness, strength, courage, independence and resourcefulness of her constituents is no coincidence. If she and her liberal allies truly recognized Vermonters’ strengths, they would be providing opportunities for them to prosper, not burdening them with countless regulations, mandates, requirements and obligations. </div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
Rep. Fay should get serious about helping her constituents realize their hopes and dreams for themselves and their families instead of lecturing us on our alleged defects. </div>
</span><br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-87982989014530863222013-05-25T18:24:00.001-04:002013-05-25T18:24:08.172-04:00Words Matter<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
During inaugural week, Lyndon State College’s new President, Dr. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Joe Bertolino, presented a lively sketch he and his partner have performed all over the country entitled “When Gays Move into Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Bertolino did a one man version of the presentation at the college on April 15<sup>th</sup> as a part of the week long celebration of his inauguration. The presentation was billed as a “funny, interactive, and challenging program to get today’s college students thinking about important ‘community issues’ such as diversity appreciation, homophobia, and heterosexism.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The presentation was spirited and enlightening.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Bertolino’s theme was that we need be inclusive and tolerant of people who are different from ourselves—to get to know people for who they are so that myths and stereotypes can be dispelled. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is a superb goal, and Dr. Bertolino should be commended for having the courage to bring the issue of intolerance before the community in such a public way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By dong this, he is fulfilling the highest calling of an educator. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Tolerance and respect for people of different backgrounds and perspectives are lessons our children ought to be learning all their lives, and particularly when they enter the world of post secondary education.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Academia is where our children should be exposed to different ideas and viewpoints, because that exposure fosters critical thinking skills so important to a meaningful and productive life. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
President Bertolino has just hired Dr. Kellie Bean as LSC’s new provost.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A provost is the senior academic administrator of an institution of higher learning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the second most powerful position in the college. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Here are some excerpts from Dr. Bean’s writings which reveal how she feels about diversity appreciation: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
On military veterans and military contractors:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Wives<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"> and girlfriends face the implicit (and sometimes very real) violence imported home by their veteran loved ones and our government panders to the rapist, old boys club culture of military contractors.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">On our military heroes who liberated <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“What to say to women facing the misogynist fallout of the violence of war? ‘Step away from the fight, protect yourself’ may work as a temporary tactic, but cannot suffice in the face of institutional misogyny and systemic indifference.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>…And as long as this is the case, the boys of <st1:country-region w:st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region> and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Washington</st1:state></st1:place> will continue to be boys--and the women around them will continue to pay the price.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">On President Bush (and the tens of millions who voted for him)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Americans live under an illegitimate leader, who was and is demonstrably unfit for office. A man whose most noteworthy accomplishments previous to his appointment [sic.] as President had been avoiding military service, drug addiction, not making a killing in oil on his own, and signing record numbers of death warrants as governor of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Texas</st1:state></st1:place>. Ours is a President with an appetite for torture…”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Bean’s venom is so poisonous that she defames our President with no regard for the truth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>President Bush was a military veteran, was never a drug addict, and never signed one death warrant. (The <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Texas</st1:place></st1:state> constitution does not allow a governor to sign a death warrant.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">On Sarah Palin (and the tens of millions who voted for her):<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“She is a walking stereotype, an abomination: all dressed up and hollowed out, a pin-up, or blow-up doll … upon which men and women alike project their ugliest fantasies of women.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sarah Palin is …confused, mean-spirited, and kinda [sic.] dumb.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Palin endorses a movement proud to call for a return to Jim Crow laws, that places spunk above political experience, and sees truck ownership as a necessary qualification to hold public office.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Jim Crow reference in Dr. Bean’s statement is rich in irony:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>no modern movement advocates a return to Jim Crow laws, and Jim Crow laws were in place for 100 years because elected Democrats enacted and enforced them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Republican Party, of which Sarah Palin is a member, vigorously opposed those laws. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">On Fox News (and the millions who watch):<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Consider: pornography is visual entertainment which appeals to the visceral needs or drives of its audience; it offers a pleasure in looking, in watching the domination or degradation of one category of individual by another. see: Fox News”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">On the tens of millions who voted for Republicans:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“My impulse is to say they get what they deserve, have gotten the obscene war, the rotting economy, the repressive culture they deserve.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">In her many writings, Dr. Bean frequently uses the word “misogynist” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>to describe our country, our voters, our culture and the academic world she has been in for over a quarter century.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Her views are not confined to her writings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is surely no coincidence that one of her students who rated her on the “Rate My Professor” website recommended her class to others “unless you are super conservative misogynist”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The definition of misogynist is a person who hates or mistreats women.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">Dr. Bean’s tweets and Facebook postings about those with whom she disagrees are too vulgar to be printed in a newspaper. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">This is what passes for diversity appreciation and tolerance in institutions of higher learning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The new provost believes that our community is inhabited by people who hate or mistreat women, that those of us who vote Republican, are politically conservative, or who admire Sarah Palin and President Bush are evil, stupid and racist, that those of us who listen to Fox News have a thing for pornography, and that the military veterans of our community are violent and dangerous.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">Dr. Bertolino emphasized in his April 15<sup>th</sup> presentation that “words matter” and “words hurt”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet Lyndon State College’s new provost has published many words that are defamatory and wounding —and certainly not inclusive or accepting of those who disagree with her.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Bean’s belief that people who have viewpoints different from hers are dangerous, violent, evil, racist, dumb and even criminal demonstrates a lack of tolerance and a fear of diversity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">In his presentation, Dr. Bertolino said: “Everyone should be treated with dignity and respect,” and he urged the audience to “create an atmosphere of acceptance.” Dr. Bertolino is right.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet Dr. Bertolino’s new provost treats with disdain, disrespect and intolerance those with whom she disagrees. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">Dr. Bertolino ended his April 15th presentation with a poem about Rosa Parks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The poem states that Ms. Parks said one word that changed the nation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That word was “no.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">It is time to say “No” to academic leaders who disrespect and defame people of divergent views.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Bean’s narrow minded and illiberal view of millions of Americans and their viewpoints does a profound disservice to the young people who are coming to college to widen their intellectual horizons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-89966672754563758622013-01-14T06:58:00.000-05:002013-07-20T09:23:34.045-04:00Hot and Cool<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Depending on which generation you are from, the Republican
Party is the hottest or the coolest political party on the planet. The primordial
magisterial classes, supported by establishment churches, media and
universities, would have you believe otherwise. But they, like their
counterparts in societies throughout history from the <st1:placename w:st="on">Roman</st1:placename>
<st1:placename w:st="on">Republic</st1:placename> to pre-revolutionary <st1:country-region w:st="on">France</st1:country-region>, to the <st1:place w:st="on">Soviet Union</st1:place>,
want to keep their power and prerogatives, so they project their own moldering
ideas and reactionary qualities on Republicans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But the empirical facts support how hot and cool the Republican Party
is:</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in;">Republicans
believe that people can run their own affairs without the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ancien regime</i> telling them what to
do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Republicans support parental
choice for education, retirement choice for Social Security, individual
choice for family health care.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Think
about it:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>no other major political
movement in world history has at its core tenet the belief that
individuals can run their own lives. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All other political movements proclaim
they are the saviors of the benighted masses. </li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in;">Because
Republicans believe that people are intelligent enough to run their own
affairs, we believe in small government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This idea is truly revolutionary and very hot—or cool.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dispersing power to the people, rather
than amassing power to one’s own political party is so radical that no
other major political movement has embraced the idea. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in;">Republicans
believe, like Martin Luther King, that individuals must be judged on the
content of their character, not the color of their skin or their station
in life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Republicans appreciate individuals,
whereby the antediluvians in the American Establishment judge people by
their skin color, ethnic background, gender, or sexual orientation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Judging individuals by the color of
their skin, their gender or ethnic heritage is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">so</i> nineteenth century. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in;">Republicans
believe in freedom.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Other political
movements may talk about freedom, but Republicans actually believe in
individual freedom.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We believe that
our First Amendment rights should be vigorously defended. People should be
able to practice their religion without being sued by the government for
discrimination, or punished by the government for failing to follow
government regulations that violate an individual’s religious beliefs. We
believe in free speech, and oppose university speech codes, government
regulation or subsidy of broadcast media, or jailing dissidents who dare
question the prophet Mohammed. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We also
believe that the freedom given to us by the Second Amendment should also
be vigorously defended against government infringement. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in;">Republicans
believe that people, not government, can solve the problems of our
day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The magisterial classes continually
find “outrage” and “catastrophe” occurring, for which amassing government
power and imposing government regulations are the only solutions. The
result is a 21<sup>st</sup> century Puritanism, far more rigorous than the
17<sup>th</sup> century version, where nearly every aspect of our personal
lives is regulated by the government in the name of safety, environmental
protection, or fairness.</li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in;">Republicans
believe in private enterprise, not government subsidized and controlled
industries. This is truly revolutionary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Governments have favored certain businesses through subsidies, tax
preferences, regulations and outright ownership since governments began, from
the dynasties of <st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region>
and the patronage system of ancient <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Rome</st1:city></st1:place>
through the medieval guild system to modern day Nazism and communism. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This ancient idea that governments favor
certain businesses is supported by the aristocrats in <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Washington</st1:place></st1:state> and opposed by <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Republicans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in;">Republicans
believe that civil discourse and civilized debate, and not name calling,
should be the norm, not the exception in the 21<sup>st</sup> Century.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The establishment would have you believe
that it favors civil discourse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
opposite is true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Vicious attacks,
cheap shots, and ridicule on those men and women who dare question the
aristocrats in <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Washington</st1:place></st1:state>
are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">de rigeur </i>for the establishment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Republicans and conservatives are called
greedy, stupid, racist, liars, crazy and unpatriotic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our own Sen. Sanders, for example, has
used these terms repeatedly when speaking about Republicans and
conservatives in his speeches, his memoirs, and on his website.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in;">Finally,
survey after survey over the decades has come to the same conclusion:
Republicans or political “conservatives” (the establishment’s name for
people who love freedom) are happier, more generous and even have a larger
circle of friends than “liberals”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
So, if you are into revolutionary politics, or just want to
be hotter, cooler, or happier, the Republican party is the place for you. </div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-68187856722446674362012-11-13T21:52:00.003-05:002012-11-13T21:52:54.233-05:00Shifting Sands -- Why Republicans Lost in 2012
<br />
<div class="p1">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="276">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">This is in response to my Facebook friend's inquiry. So bear with me if it seems overly sweeping -- it is my humble attempt to respond to her, and I thought it easier to post as a general blog than to post as a Facebook "status update". </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">The Republicans do embrace all people -- no matter their race or gender. They believe that all people have inherent value and have equal rights to freedom and the pursuit of happiness. They agree with the Declaration of Independence, in other words -- "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Republicans who deny God but are libertarian in belief, also believe in the human right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Why did
the Republicans lose, then, if they are such a welcoming party, embracing such a broad view, and more specifically, why did they lose among minorities
and women? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Theories abound. Some think they lost because Romney was
too moderate; he did not stand up against Obama, for example, regarding the Benghazi disaster
in which our own president stood by while our American ambassador was murdered.
He was too moderate, because although he stated he would repeal
Obamacare, Romney did not explain why it was wrong – and how it would lead to
the ultimate loss of freedom and to an economic disaster for Americans.
Some friends, conservative, but more pessimistic than I, chose not to vote because they felt
Romney, as a moderate Republican, was not conservative enough, and they believed a Republican would do
little different than a Democrat in office. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Other theories are that the
Democrats played victim politics – and scared women into believing that
Republicans wanted to take away their health care and, particularly, their
birth control and abortions, although Romney stood for none of these goals. Ad
campaigns tended to play on this scare tactic theory that Republicans hate
women. Then there’s the mantra from the Democrats that Republicans are
racists – people believed that too, maybe. I certainly heard someone at
the polls on election-day grumble that Republicans hate Hispanics. It’s ironic
that the Democrats have claimed to be non-racist, given history, but the tag
“racist” sticks, proof or no proof. There were the ads that tried to show
that Romney cared for nobody and actually killed people. Those ads may
have worked, at least on some people. There were the claims that Romney
did not provide enough specifics, heard from the Democrats, particularly from
Obama. I heard friends making that claim. It was bizarre,
considering that Obama had no plan and that Romney did have specific plans (and
Ryan, for that matter, could not have provided anything more specific than he
did on economic policy). Perhaps Romney did lose because he did not
provide enough specifics in other areas: schools, immigration, foreign policy. Others think Romney lost because the Democrats ran a smarter campaign -- targeting individuals with the issues they deemed important -- whether that was abortion, gay rights, Sesame Street, or health care. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Why do I think they lost? All those theories played a
part. I have my own theory: the public school system has relentlessly
educated our children (starting with our generation – and instituted by our
parents – the Baby Boomers) that the United States of America is not special;
that Americans are bullies; that Americans are racists; that America is a
country full of wrong-headed bigots who victimized swaths of people. That
the United States of America founders and subsequent American citizens never followed God, and even if they did,
that God is a myth – believed in by simpletons, not by serious-minded smart
folks. Because of the indoctrination by government schools, many Americans today
have no interest, understanding or appreciation for the underlying
principles of our nation, nor do they see how or why we should preserve these
principles. They don’t know or they don’t agree on what freedom means –
that freedom is meant to be the freedom to live your own life as you see fit –
and that government is there to protect you, not to provide for you, and that government is inherently dangerous to individuals and so must be limited. They
believe freedom means the freedom to be provided for -- by
the government. They don't see that reliance on the government by definition erases their individual freedom. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">I went to school and I was immersed in that education.
I see it in the public schools today – where comprehensive American history is
not taught – only the history of American victims. If you believe you are a
victim or that people you know are victims and that the United States of America is a country fraught with errors,
governed by bigots, and that the government is there to serve you or to make up
for wrongs it committed against you, not protect you and allow you to make your
own choices, then you will vote for someone who represents you. I found
the election disturbing because it made clear that a large group of Americans
now believe the latter, not the former, about our country. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Of course there have always been competing views within our country about the purpose of our government, but in recent years, the country has shifted so that more and more people no longer believe in the original definition of freedom. </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">I do not and will not fear the future, but I see darkness for a country with diminishing individual freedoms. Government is not known for relinquishing power once attained. </span></div>
<!--EndFragment--><br />
Serenahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10838165612273997553noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-19587672481393557142012-09-30T19:26:00.000-04:002012-09-30T21:51:07.934-04:00Presidential Leadership: A Comparison<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
President Obama laments that he has been unable to accomplish his goals
because of the "Republican Congress". (President Obama seems to forget that he has a Democrat majority in the Senate) Does he have a legitimate
argument? Let's look at recent past Presidents.<br />
<br />
When President
Reagan was elected to his first term, he had a Republican Senate, but an
overwhelming Democratic House led by Tip O'Neill, a strong ideologue
for his party. Yet President Reagan was able to push through his
economic growth agenda that led to an unprecedented recovery from much
worse economic circumstances than Obama inherited. In addition, he
famously worked with Tip O'Neill to pass <a href="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/04/02/bipartisan-reagan-oneill-social-security-deal-in-1983-showed-it-can-be-done">social security reform</a>.
At no time did anyone hear Ronald Reagan blame anyone for any failure.<br />
<br />
When Bill Clinton was elected, like President Obama, he had Democrat
majorities in both houses of Congress. Also, like Obama, during the mid-term
elections in 1996, the House went Republican, but unlike, Obama, the Senate also
went Republican. Bill Clinton had to work with Newt Gingrich as
Speaker of the House of Representatives - an ideologue, basically, a right-wing Tip
O'Neill. Bill Clinton most likely wasn't happy, but he nonetheless set out to work with Newt Gingrich and his colleagues and accomplished major
welfare reform as well as spending cuts that led to a surplus.<br />
<br />
George
Bush had a Republican majorities in his first term and Democrat
majorities in his second term. He famously worked with Ted Kennedy to
push through bipartisan education reform. He never complained that the Democrats blocked his economic agenda during his second term and attempts at reforming the federal mortgage system.<br />
<br />
Now to the current President.
President Obama had overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress when he came to office
in 2009. He worked with the Democrats to pass an $800 billion stimulus
package that ended up costing over $300,000 for each job it supposedly
created. (Although according to Bob Woodward's book, he apparently <a href="http://thehill.com/conventions-2012/dem-convention-charlotte/247937-woodward-pelosi-pressed-mute-button-on-obama">did not take a leadership role</a>.)
He is credited with pushing through Obamacare, although it might be
better-named Pelosi care as he never proposed his own plan, but allowed Congress
to come up with a plan. He presided over TARP II which led to more bailouts including the government becoming an owner of the General Motors. Obama had no trouble passing his
agenda during the first two years and our <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/2/">ballooning debt and deficits </a>are a testament to that fact..<br />
<br />
Then the midterms came at the end of 2010 with voters
soundly rejecting Obama's agenda through an election of an overwhelming
majority of Republicans in the House. President Obama's first foray into
working with the new House was to state, <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obama-to-gop-%E2%80%98they-can-come-for-the-ride-but-they-have-to-sit-in-back/">"The Republicans can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in the back."</a> A leader doesn't lead by marginalizing an elected opposition. A
President leads by reaching out. Yet there are many instances of Obama
lashing out from the <a href="http://nation.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/10/obama-flashback-if-they-bring-knife-fight-we-bring-gun">beginning</a>. Bob Woodward in his new book speaks about how Obama failed
to lead during the debt deal negotiations. During the negotiations
with Boehner (an ideological midget compared to Gingrich, O'Neill and
Kennedy), Boehner had agreed to revenue increases put forth by Obama, but Obama reneged on his offer and asked for more. Boehner threw up
his hands at the bad faith and Obama became enraged. <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/woodward_book_blames_obama_for_debt_deal_collapse.html">The debt talks failed.</a>
Not only can Obama not reach out to Republicans, he cannot reach out to
his own party in the Senate to get his budget passed. Obama sent a
budget which was defeated 97-0 by the Senate. Moreover, his Democratic Senate has failed to
pass any budget for over three years in contravention of the law. Even one of his own Democrats said that <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/cardozas-corner/198861-the-professorial-president">Obama is alienating and arrogant</a>. Now,
during the campaign we are hearing that its all the Republicans fault, he
c<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/20/obama-cant-change-washington-from-inside/">an't change Washington from the inside</a>. President Obama's lament is really an
admission of failed leadership. And he wants us to re-elect him?<br />
<br />
So would Mitt Romney fare any better? Consider that Mitt Romney was governor of a state whose legislature was 85% Democrat. However, he managed to work with the Democrats to eliminate a billion dollar deficit, end with a surplus and a "rainy-day" fund of over 2 billion, lower unemployment to 4.6% and <a href="http://aboutmittromney.com/economic-metrics.htm">raise Massachusetts' credit rating</a>.<br />
<br />
He was called in to save a corrupt and debt laden Olympics in Salt Lake City. <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865559550/Romney-and-the-Olympics-What-the-SLC-Games-say-about-a-Mitt-Romney-presidency.html?pg=all">The Olympics ended up being successful financially and otherwise.</a> <br />
<br />
Obama has demonstrated that he is not a leader. He has demonstrated that he cannot work with ideological opponents or even those who tend to agree with him.<br />
<br />
Romney, on the other hand, has a history of working successfully with political opposition even when such opposition is overwhelming. He has a history of problem solving, both in the private sector and in the public sector. And unlike, Obama, he brings to the presidency executive experience. I am confident that if he is elected President, you will not hear Romney blaming Democrats for their or his shortcomings. You will see Romney working with Congress toward solutions to improve America's woeful economy and debt problems.</div>
</div>
Jenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10252781811471302230noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-42112757754081682092012-03-18T10:29:00.000-04:002012-03-18T10:29:51.555-04:00This is hilarious<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">The Great Communicator Speaks: <br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/03/a-genius-for-metaphor.php">Obama: A genius for metaphor</a> </i><br />
<br />
I wonder if any of the late night comedians will pick this up. Or maybe Good Morning America? Hmmm. <br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Hat tip: <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/">http://www.powerlineblog.com/</a></i><br />
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline" /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-84942643458333473682012-02-28T08:05:00.002-05:002012-12-08T14:02:08.328-05:00Sen. Sanders Assault on the Constitution<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span lang="EN"><div align="CENTER" dir="LTR">
Sen. Sanders Assault on the Constitution</div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law<i> … </i>abridging the freedom of speech…" In January 2010, The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in <i>Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission </i>which held that the sweeping language of the freedom of speech section of the First Amendment required striking down a federal statute that prohibited any for profit or non-profit corporation and any union from using money to pay for "speech that is an ‘electioneering communication’ or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate." The Court held that such prohibition amounted to a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech, and noted that the Supreme Court had traditionally held that prohibitions against political speech must meet a "strict scrutiny" test if they were to pass constitutional muster. The outright ban on political speech, on the pain of criminal penalties, outlined in the statute under review, did not pass the strict scrutiny test. </div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
</div>
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, stated: </div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
"Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people…The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office. Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution".</div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
</div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
The decision followed a long line of cases which have held that corporations have certain constitutional rights, including the right to free speech. </div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
Indeed, it is imperative that corporations have protections under our constitution, for stripping corporations of their rights under the rule of law would strip away individuals’ rights as well. The constitutional amendment proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders demonstrates the danger to our constitutional democracy of taking away rights from corporations or other private entities. </div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
Sen. Bernie Sanders, outraged by the <i>Citizens United </i>decision to protect free speech rights of certain entities, has proposed a constitutional amendment that not only takes away corporations and other "private entities" free speech rights, but all other constitutional rights as well. </div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
Section one of the proposed Sanders Amendment states: </div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
"The rights protected by the United States Constitution are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States or any foreign state."</div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
Sanders’ amendment, then, not only applies to corporations, but to "private entities" established for business purposes or to promote business interests. The dictionary definition of business is, among other things, "an occupation, profession or trade". "Private entities" would include sole proprietorships, cooperatives, associations, and partnerships. Credit unions, auto repair shops, food coops, farms, realtors, accounting firms, street vendors, and home day care operators would all be covered by this amendment. A "private entity" that "promotes business interests" would include Northeast Kingdom Chamber of Commerce, groups like St. Johnsbury Rotary Club and St. Johnsbury Business and Professional Women’s Club, and trade organizations like Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility. </div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
The Sanders’ Amendment extinguishes the rule of law for anyone engaged in an occupation, profession or trade by declaring that all business entities and those promoting business have no rights whatsoever under the U.S. Constitution.</div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
Here are some of the constitutional protections that would be lost under the Sanders Amendment: </div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
The constitution’s First Amendment right of free speech would not apply to any business entity. Any business entities from the local Chamber of Commerce to the professional organizations to the Northeast Organic Farming Association could be muzzled by government officials. </div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
The First Amendment right to assembly would not apply to business entities. Business and trade conventions could be prohibited under the law. Organizations like the local retail association or Rotary Club could be banned from meeting. </div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits bills of attainder--laws that target certain individuals--and <i>ex post facto </i>laws criminalizing conduct lawful when committed. That section would not apply to business entities. Congress, state legislatures and local select boards could pass laws targeting any individual business they chose, and criminalize conduct of a business after the fact.</div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
</div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution prohibits states from impairing contracts. This protection would no longer be afforded to business entities. State legislatures could void any business contract, giving favors to its business friends and punishing those companies which were out of favor with the politicians. </div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
Business entities would not be entitled to Constitutional due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments if the Sanders Amendment was added to the constitution. Business entities could have their property confiscated and their contracts voided, and they would have no legal recourse. Indeed, the Sanders Amendment would arguably deny business entities and those promoting business the right to access to courts, if a federal or state legislature so chose. </div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
Constitutional equal protection of the laws would not apply to business entities. If a government official did not like a local realtor or book store, he could shut the business down for no reason; or a legislature could declare only certain favored business entities could do business in their state. There would be no recourse. </div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
The far-reaching language of the Sanders Amendment would abrogate the rule of law for businesses of any type or size in this country. Its unlimited scope would encourage local, state and federal governments to wield the power it provides to them. The expansive scope of the amendment would preclude any narrowing interpretation by the courts. </div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
If the Sanders Amendment passed, we would have a fundamentally different country where people who engage in business would be at the mercy of politicians who could give favors or take away privileges with impunity.</div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" dir="LTR">
Private entities must enjoy constitutional rights if the rule of law enshrined in our constitution is to have any meaning. </div>
</span><div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-76288985213270269812011-11-30T10:09:00.000-05:002011-11-30T10:09:03.949-05:00Medicine: There Should be an App for That.The problem with health care is the total disconnect between the service or procedure and the consumer. With a family of eight, although everyone is apparently healthy overall, our bills tell a different story. <br />
<br />
We have various run-ins with doctors all year. One "minor" day surgery procedure -- which entailed a total of two hours in and out, a snip here, a stitch there, a bit of anesthesia -- cost us a cool ten thousand dollars. Yes, that's right. It makes me yearn for the old days (not really) when we could have just gone in and done the snipping and stitching ourselves. But seriously, before the procedure, being the optimists that we are (or were), we figured this procedure would cost maybe two thousand dollars. Seemed like a good imaginary price. But of course, we found out later, we were wrong. Totally wrong. We did call before the procedure to find out how much it would all cost, and we were told that it would take two to three weeks to get us an estimate. (That should have been the tip-off). <br />
<br />
Then there was the thirty-minute MRI that cost us five thousand dollars. Ten years ago, the exact same procedure using the exact same machine (I recognized it) had cost five hundred dollars. When we called afterwards to find out why the procedure had increased ten times in price in ten years, we got not even an attempt to explain the huge difference in price. <br />
<br />
Now today I have another "minor" procedure to attend to. So, being the savvy consumer that I am, I called to inquire about price. I was shuffled off by phone to the appropriate department, and when I reached the person (thankful she was actually there), she told me that it would take her three days to work up an "estimate". I asked her whether this wasn't a pretty run-of-the-mill typical procedure, and shouldn't they have an "estimate" already? (I would think that after three days they could actually give me a cool, hard price, after all that time and work). Not the least bit amused, she explained that she would have to refer the question to various appropriate departments, and then repeated her answer that it would take them three days to work up that estimate. Clearly, I wasn't getting anywhere. I tried again -- well, shouldn't someone have some ballpark idea? No, becoming tired of me and my apparent lack of understanding, she repeated the same answer. (I might have detected a sigh too). Then she added that most people who are concerned about price call well in advance. <br />
<br />
As I hung up, resigned to my fate, I couldn't help but think, shouldn't we all be concerned about price? Is there any other arena of life in which we are not concerned about price? I mean, I worry about the price of diapers, ice cream, dinner out, dance lessons, soccer cleats, Christmas. We have a budget for these things. Most people do have budgets, I think. Or at least they have a defined income within which they must live. I can't think of any other industry in which people, including those who work in their field, are totally in the dark about price. <br />
<br />
Even if he doesn't know exactly how much is owed, perhaps, at least a person knows what his monthly house payment is or what his car payment is, if he has one. We are concerned about big prices and little prices. I was just out Christmas shopping and my shopping buddy decided to wait to buy some gifts until she could be sure she could get the best possible price. <br />
<br />
Now, I just read, there's an app that can tell you, right at the store, whether you're getting the best deal on that giant set of paper towels, or whether you should drive next door to save a couple dollars -- maybe even five. It can tell you whether you're getting the best deal on the Pharaoh Lego set for your darling cutie-pie. <br />
<br />
Just recently a friend face-booked all of us on her great grocery deals at Shaw's -- with pictures and everything! Just imagine if every week we went into the grocery store, loaded up on groceries for the week, and then on checking out, were told that the store would work on it and send us a bill in the next week or so. Imagine buying a house and signing all those papers (there's an endless amount of paperwork at the doctor's office too), all with no idea how much the whole thing is going to cost. Even attorneys have hourly rates and specific document fees or flat-rate fees, of which they inform their clients before they begin representation. <br />
<br />
So, as I head off into the great hazy unknown for my minor procedure, be concerned for me, and wish me good luck--on the price.Serenahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10838165612273997553noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-81292333058629529802011-11-22T14:41:00.000-05:002011-11-22T14:41:56.255-05:00Obamacare nightmare<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">This is yet another example of why government run health care will be a nightmare. The government picks on small corporations who don't have the wherewithall to fight Washington, and big corporate firms hire lobbyists to make sweetheart deals with the government. The result: big government/big corporate monopolies which mean less freedom, higher costs, and government/private company corruption. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">(From the Opinion Journal Newletter --of the Wall Street Journal) </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="" name="anchor2"><b>Sebelius Sends a Message</b></a></div><div style="margin: 12pt 0in;"><shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" filled="f" id="_x0000_t75" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" stroked="f"><stroke joinstyle="miter"></stroke><formulas><f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></f><f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></f><f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></f><f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></f><f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></f><f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></f><f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></f><f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></f><f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></f><f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></f><f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></f><f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></f></formulas><path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" o:extrusionok="f"></path><lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></lock></shapetype><shape alt="" id="_x0000_s1026" o:allowoverlap="f" style="height: 146.25pt; margin-left: 23.8pt; margin-top: 0px; mso-position-horizontal-relative: text; mso-position-horizontal: right; mso-position-vertical-relative: line; mso-wrap-distance-bottom: 0; mso-wrap-distance-left: 0; mso-wrap-distance-right: 0; mso-wrap-distance-top: 0; position: absolute; width: 75pt; z-index: 251659264;" type="#_x0000_t75"><imagedata src="http://s.wsj.net/media/pd_hedcut_sebelius_kathleen.jpg"></imagedata><wrap type="square"></wrap></shape><span style="font-family: Arial;">The Obama administration promised that the Affordable Care Act would protect the public from "unreasonable" premium increases, and now our guardians at Health and Human Services are finally bringing one of those scofflaws to heel. Perhaps the first HHS target would be, say, WellPoint, the giant for-profit corporation that was President Obama's bête noire during the health-care debate?</span></div><div style="margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Nope. HHS has smaller fish to fry. In the first federal rate review case, announced yesterday, the department is targeting . . . Everence Insurance Co., which is run by the Mennonite Church and covers 4,846 people in rural Pennsylvania. The carrier is raising its small-business rates there by 11.58% on average next year, and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that her agency's enforcement action "sends a message to insurers around the country that the days of unchecked and unfair doubt-digit rate increases are over."</span></div><div style="margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">It won't, and they aren't. For the past three years Everence's claims have exceeded its premiums, meaning the company has been operating at a loss. Its technical "underwriting gain/loss" measure for this book of business is currently minus-41%, so for every dollar of revenue it receives it spends $1.41. This company is not exactly the paragon of corporate greed that the likes of Ms. Sebelius so often invoke.</span></div><div style="margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">HHS's vague rule of thumb is that any premium increase over 10% is probably "unreasonable," though not unless the agency says it is. Currently HHS doesn't have the regulatory powers to revoke such increases, but the program is a prelude to such price controls on private insurance. Ms. Sebelius and HHS are keeping a registry of offenders who will then be handicapped when selling their products once the rest of ObamaCare comes on line in 2014.</span></div><div style="margin: 12pt 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">What the Everence case study really shows is that the main factor driving premiums is the underlying cost of medical care, not insurer profits or malfeasance. As for that supposed scourge, why couldn't HHS find a more unsympathetic villain for one of its signature programs than a small Mennonite health plan that no one has ever heard of and is hanging on for dear life?</span></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-91909716203276306672011-11-19T09:53:00.002-05:002011-11-19T10:10:55.750-05:00One reason why a 9% national sales tax is a good idea<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Many conservatives have questioned the portion of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan that calls for a 9% sales tax. To be sure, there is a danger that a new type of tax can be subject to abuse. But as Cain says, his proposed tax system is so simple that the people can monitor when Congress decides to raise taxes. Now because there are so many hidden taxes and tax loopholes, we cannot discern when are taxes are being raised. <br />
<br />
But here is why I think a 9% sales tax is a good idea: As an attorney who has represented thousands of people over the last 32 years, I know that there are many people who do not report all of their income. There is a vast underground economy in this country, if my experience is any guide. The practice is so common that the courts do not even comment on it when the issue is brought up at trial. <br />
<br />
I am sympathetic with people who are loathe to pay taxes, but for those who do not report income, there are others--namely wage earners--who have to take up that slack by paying higher taxes. It is not fair to those who do report all of their income, or who are forced to report all of their income because they are W-2 employees. <br />
<br />
A 9% sales tax is a simple way to require those who live on unreported income to pay some federal tax. <br />
<br />
Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress tried to fix this problem by forcing business owners to file 1099's on most purchases, resulting in a bookkeeping and paperwork nightmare. Public outcry forced the government to rescind that requirement. Similarly, more IRS auditing of individual taxpayers might force more reporting of cash income, but that would require far more IRS agents and more intrusion into our lives. And an IRS audit is expensive for both the government and individual.<br />
<br />
So, while a national sales tax may be distasteful to many, it accomplishes one goal in a simple, non-intrusive way: it taxes people who do not report all of their income, without any cumbersome or intrusive mechanisms to force people to report their unreported income. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-63130759349965264422011-11-06T09:27:00.000-05:002011-11-06T09:27:10.721-05:00Civility revisited<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"> President Obama gave an <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztbJmXQDIGA">eloquent speech in Tucson </a>on January 12, 2011 after the shooting of Representatiave Gabrielle Giffords. In it he said "How can we honor the fallen? How can we be true to their memory? ....[we can remember] we are all Americans, and that we can question each other's ideas without questioning each other's love of country" <br />
<br />
Earlier in 2010, when the Tea Party Movement began, Democrats called for <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdYQG6h8TpM">civility</a> on the House Floor when <a href="http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/03/25/2010-a-race-odyssey-disproving-a-negative-for-cash-prizes-or-how-the-civil-rights-movement-jumped-the-shark/">false reports</a> about Tea Partiers calling Representatives racial slurs surfaced.<br />
<br />
The Establishment Media reported endlessly about the "lack of civility" <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/tucson-shooting-civility-washington-jon-karl-lawmakers-state-union-obama-12620075">here</a> <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-14/justice/arizona.shooting.oconnor_1_civility-weekend-shooting-tucson-shooting?_s=PM:CRIME">here</a> <a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2041465,00.html">here</a> <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june11/shieldsbrooks_01-14.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0113/After-the-Arizona-shooting-the-civility-movement-sees-tipping-point">here</a> which they concluded caused the Tucson tragedy. One pundit even called for a <a href="http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/13/tucson-shooting-a-call-for-national-political-civility-month/">National Civility Month</a>, and USA Today reported that a <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/02/gabrielle-giffords-civility-/1">National Civility Institute</a> was being established by President Bill Clinton and President George H.W. Bush. Never mind that the Tucson tragedy was perpetrated by a mentally ill assailant who had no political motive. These articles linked the conservative Tea Party to the lack of civil discourse in this country. <br />
<br />
How times have changed in so short a period. First, a mere month after the Tucson tragedy, there were the decidedly uncivil <a href="http://forgottenliberty.com/the-overwhelming-civility-of-union-protesters/">union protests in Wisconsin</a> and <a href="http://thegabriellahoffman.com/2011/02/28/leftist-brilliance-and-civility-emanates-following-protests/">elsewhere across the country</a>. The Establishment Media and the President were silent on the the lack of civility by union protestors. Indeed, while Obama remained mostly silent about the protests, his Secretary of Labor <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-administration-urges-union-protesters-to-keep-fighting/">enthusiastically endorsed</a> the union's methods. <br />
<br />
Then came the Occupy movement. Unlike the Tea Party Movement, the Occupy Movement has been characterized by <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/11/rampaging-occupiers-attack-78-year-old-woman.php">physical attacks on the elderly</a> , <a href="http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/29683079/detail.html">arson</a>, <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_park_big_top_ilBy4VfYIwDGt2I1rM33vL">sexual assaults</a> <a href="http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2011/11/occupy-boston-occupies-israeli-consulate">anti semitism</a>; <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2011/11/03/more-ugly-occupy-oakland-pictures-that-wont-make-msm-front-pages/">vandalism</a>, zombie <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/11/fascist-occupiers-try-to-shout-down-governor-walker.php">like shouting down speakers</a>. <br />
<br />
Civility went out of fashion a mere few weeks after the Tucson tragedy, according the Establishment Media and President Obama. A Google search of the word "Tucson tragedy civility" reveals hundreds of stories about the need for civility in politics in the wake of the Tucson shootings. A Google search "Occupy movement civility" reveals not one Establishment Media story linking the Occupy Movement with the need for civility in public discourse. Not one. And of course, our eloquent President has been silent on the need for civility by the Occupy protestors. <br />
<br />
Last night, Presidential candidates Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich provided the answer to the call for civil discourse in politics. In an historic Lincoln Douglas style debate on entitlements, the two candidates delved into the issues of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security entitlements, and how to save those programs for our children and grandchildren. There were no "gotcha" moments, no personal attacks; only cordial discourse on the problems we face and solutions to those problems. If you did not see the debate, I urge you to go to <a href="http://www.c-span.org/Events/Cain-Gingrich-Debate-Lincoln-Douglas-Style/10737425199/">C-Span to watch it. </a> If we truly want civility in politics, Cain and Gringrich have demonstrated how it can work. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-64403401740340367292011-10-25T07:24:00.001-04:002011-10-25T07:31:32.456-04:00The Bank Bailout Big Lie<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">On October 24, 2011, Occupy Oakland protestors <a href="http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/313277">stormed a Chase Bank</a>, vandalizing the bank, terrifying customers and chanting "Banks got bailed out. We got sold out." They then tried to storm a Wells Fargo Bank but the bank locked its doors. From the Occupiers to the Main Stream Media, the myth that banks got bailed out continues. Even Bill O'Reilly in the so-called No Spin Zone repeated the myth last night while reporting on the Occupy Oakland raid on the banks. <br />
<br />
Here are the facts: TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) was instituted in October 2008 to promote stability in the financial markets. Under the program, the federal government essentially lent money to the nation's banks through various types of transacations. The banks were required to repay the funds at the usurious rate of 15%. <br />
<br />
TARP was also used in 2008 to bail out the insurance giant American International Group (AIG), and later during the Obama administration to bail out General Motors and Chrysler.<br />
<br />
The Congressional Budget Office issued a <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12118/03-29-TARP.pdf">report</a> on TARP in March 2011. The results? The financial institutions (banks) who were lent funds from the Treasury repaid those funds with interest so that taxpayers have <em>earned 9 billion dollars</em> from the banks who took TARP money. The <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12118/03-29-TARP.pdf">CBO report</a> states: <span style="font-family: AGaramond-Regular; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: AGaramond-Regular; font-size: small;"></span></span><br />
<div align="left"><br />
</div><div align="left">"To provide support for financial institutions, the federal government disbursed $313 billion, most of which has already been repaid, and is projected to provide an additional $2 billion (see Table 2). CBO estimates a net gain to the government of $9 billion from those transactions." </div><div align="left"><br />
</div><div align="left">Of course, TARP overall has lost taxpayer money, but not from banks. The cost to taxpayers on the AIG subsidy is 14 billion, and the GM and Chrysler bailout cost is another 14 billion, according to the CBO. But the Occupiers won't storm GM or Chrysler because those TARP funds were used to <a href="http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/jun/13/gm-plan-really-uaw-bailout/">bail out the United Auto Workers</a>. Unions are financial supporters of the Occupy movement, so the protestors won't turn on their benefactors. Banks, on the other hand, are easy targets because they are seen by the public as the bad guys. The problem is that banks are essential to build a thriving economy, and demonizing banks will hurt our economic recovery. </div><div align="left"><br />
</div><div align="left"><br />
</div><div align="left"><br />
</div><div align="left"><br />
</div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-4366509040616962412011-10-20T17:41:00.022-04:002011-10-20T17:54:01.153-04:00Wendy Wilton's latest Health Care computations--even scarier than the last<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTSbdQLSgXsUZarcgpYXumKaWAh8DRp_TV0UOy0fSowgNbOWay2XfnLIK8iumgXjbwm-2hlXtwJLSI1ioluORoINr4H2V3WnR2xXyonCnoli_IAqH2ct-hK0YMu2Zk1UZp5aHkaEA1yc4/s1600/Green+Mountain+Care+Updated+Handout+Oct+2011_Page_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTSbdQLSgXsUZarcgpYXumKaWAh8DRp_TV0UOy0fSowgNbOWay2XfnLIK8iumgXjbwm-2hlXtwJLSI1ioluORoINr4H2V3WnR2xXyonCnoli_IAqH2ct-hK0YMu2Zk1UZp5aHkaEA1yc4/s640/Green+Mountain+Care+Updated+Handout+Oct+2011_Page_1.jpg" width="492" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheNFM5Xek0eCSkDeF3B9Pv1THlkbP-i40J0JDIagpeY7OQkZNDlD7xmLVAIUsH_vj4PkGnqVF6C-3a7gSRd2_4261AYUNmwlgRO9ukvtZfh78aQKT_t_yh9YhzDYyxvee0sBHZGwxlJzY/s1600/Green+Mountain+Care+Updated+Handout+Oct+2011_Page_2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheNFM5Xek0eCSkDeF3B9Pv1THlkbP-i40J0JDIagpeY7OQkZNDlD7xmLVAIUsH_vj4PkGnqVF6C-3a7gSRd2_4261AYUNmwlgRO9ukvtZfh78aQKT_t_yh9YhzDYyxvee0sBHZGwxlJzY/s640/Green+Mountain+Care+Updated+Handout+Oct+2011_Page_2.jpg" width="494" /></a></div><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-83151040777366475262011-09-07T14:29:00.000-04:002011-09-07T14:29:00.088-04:00The Jobs Speech the President Won't Make<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">The headline two years and eight months into the Obama presidency and a week before his “jobs” speech was “zero job growth in August, unemployment stuck at 9.1%”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unemployment is actually 2.0% higher than it was when he took office.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Policies favoring certain segments of society, and policies that promote politically correct economic activity have been the hallmark of this administration.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unfortunately, the result is sluggish, or no, growth, a persistent high and unacceptable unemployment rate, and an unsustainable level of debt. I hope that President Obama will recognize that he needs to change course dramatically if we are to get our economy moving.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here are some of the things the President should propose in his speech to stimulate our economy and create jobs.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">The Affordable Care Act is complicated and extremely costly for tax payers and employers, and the uncertainty associated with its implementation over the next several years is creating anxiety throughout our economy as employers try to guess how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will impact them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Congress should repeal this legislation and adjust existing laws to allow health insurance companies the freedom to compete across state lines.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In order to address the problem of uninsured Americans Congress should a program of incentives and subsidies to directly attack this problem.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Our energy policy has focused on developing alternative sources of energy through tax incentives, and higher rates for consumers and businesses, while impeding the development of fossil fuel sources here in the <country-region w:st="on"><place w:st="on">U.S.</place></country-region><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Alternative energy sources cannot be developed fast enough to get our economy moving. Congress should work to support development of domestic resources including coal, natural gas, and oil, with a focus on lowering the cost of energy for businesses and consumers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This will reduce dependence on foreign oil and allow us to compete more effectively in the world economy.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">The Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated many new regulations over the past few years designed to protect us from global warming and keep our air and water clean.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unfortunately, the regulations, while well-intentioned, are hurting our economy and our competitiveness worldwide.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The President should ask for a delay in the imposition of any new regulation until its full impact on the economy can be weighed.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">The National Labor Relations Board under the guise of looking out for the best interests of workers has become particularly aggressive in inserting itself into private sector business when it feels that unions have somehow been left out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The recent lawsuit brought by the NLRB against Boeing to prevent Boeing from opening a plant in <state w:st="on"><place w:st="on">South Carolina</place></state>, a right-to-work state, is an example.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The result is that the NLRB action will at best delay the opening of the plant with 2,000 workers, or, at worst, force Boeing overseas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Obama should insist that the NLRB withdraw this suit and refrain from employing the type of union bias evidenced in this case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jobs are more important to Americans that union membership and representation.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">The Justice Department recently announced that it is suing 17 major banks in the <country-region w:st="on"><place w:st="on">U.S.</place></country-region> for their role in the mortgage debacle of 2007 and 2008. First of all, there is much blame to go around for that crisis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Singling out the banks while ignoring the Congressional actions that contributed to the problem along with the enabling involvement of quasi government agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is simply wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moreover, we need these banks to help get the economy going again.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That will be hard for them to accomplish that if they must operate under the cloud of litigation initiated by our own government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Justice Department should drop these suits and focus on ensuring that our regulatory agencies provide better oversight so that the kind of lapses that contributed to the mortgage crisis are identified sooner.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Finally, Congress acted too quickly in attempting to prevent another financial crisis by passing the Dodd-Frank Bill without weighing its impact on the economy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The bill is extremely complicated in itself and it will require thousands of pages of new regulations to implement it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The banks are experiencing uncertainty and huge expenses in trying to anticipate and implement the regulations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The result is not only that banks are adopting a defensive posture when it comes to investment and job creation, but the new costs are being passed on to consumers and businesses reducing purchasing power and capacity to invest. This bill should be repealed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Jobs are created by business people hiring workers. Business people hire workers when they have confidence in their future ability to earn profits. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Businesses respond negatively to uncertainty, overregulation, higher costs and higher taxes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If President Obama were to announce these steps outlined here, he would unleash the American economy and we would see the kind of employment growth that he has claimed to want since he first took office. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div></div>Charlie Bucknamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02211080893614506385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-71909755355668877442011-09-06T14:13:00.001-04:002011-09-06T14:22:25.032-04:00Hat Tip to Vermont's Silent Cal<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/">Powerlineblog</a> today quoted Pres. Calvin Coolidge, one of the most underrated presidents in U.S. history. Since Pres. Coolidge came from Vermont, Bayley Hazen Blog will use the legal right of adverse possession to post the link. As the Powerlineblog post notes in quoting Vermont's Cal Coolidge, our current President certainly could use Silent Cal's wisdom:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>“It is a great advantage to a President, and a major source of safety to the country, for him to know that he is not a great man. When a man begins to feel that he is the only one who can lead in this republic, he is guilty of treason to the spirit of our institutions.”</blockquote><blockquote>“A President cannot, with success, constantly appeal to the country. After a time he will get no response.”</blockquote><blockquote><a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/09/silent-barack-will-never-happen-but-maybe-ought-to.php">Here is Powerline's post on President Coolidge </a> </blockquote><br />
<blockquote><br />
</blockquote><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-76382715464893762122011-09-02T13:23:00.000-04:002011-09-02T13:23:47.987-04:00The Dangers of Corporatism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: left;">Solyandra is (or was) a company that made solar panels. As such, it was a darling of the Obama administration's "green energy" initiatives. However, after receiving $535 million dollars in taxpayer funded loan guarantees as a part of the Obama stimulus, and after a visit from the President, it filed for bankruptcy, laying off over 1000 workers--which of course wiped out its loan obligation, leaving Uncle Sam as guarantor holding the bag. The Los Angeles Times, no right wing rag, cogently <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-solyndra-20110902,0,5309658.story">editorializes</a> about the dangers of corporatism: the government playing favorites with certain private industries or companies. Here is the money quote: </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-solyndra-20110902,0,5309658.story">Two important questions are raised by Solyndra's failure: Should the government be in the business of picking winners and losers by providing loan guarantees to risky energy ventures? And is Obama using stimulus funds to reward his political contributors?</a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">The <i>Times </i>answers the first with a yes, saying that risky energy ventures need government backing. But the second question calls into question the first: if the government picks corporate winners and losers, politics, no matter which party is in power, will inevitably come into play. Ethanol subsidies are a prime example. <a href="http://vtdigger.org/2011/04/20/welch-tackles-cost-of-ethanol-subsidy-to-taxpayers-boat-owners-and-equipment-operators/">Costing taxpayers $6 Billion dollars a year in subsidies,</a> and increasing food costs world wide, subsidies for ethanol have been touted as promoting green energy produced in the United States, mostly by Republicans who want to reward their electoral base in the Midwest. Democrats like Rep. Welch want to cut the subsidy while advocating subsidies for Democratic favorites like solar power and <a href="http://vtdigger.org/2011/04/20/welch-tackles-cost-of-ethanol-subsidy-to-taxpayers-boat-owners-and-equipment-operators/">high speed rail</a>. Powerful lobbyists for these industries are ensconced permanently in Washington D.C. The losers? as usual, the taxpayers. But other losers are small businesses who are struggling without grants or subsidies because, while they are providing a service or product to the public, are not on the government's favorites list either because they are not part of the latest fad in Washington, or they cannot afford to employ lobbyists to grab some of Washington's largess. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-43439723465640238112011-08-25T16:32:00.001-04:002011-08-25T16:34:38.670-04:00Wendy Wilton's Scary Health Care Statistics--and What you can do<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Wendy Wilton, Rutland City Treasurer, has <a href="http://vthealthcarefreedom.org/sites/default/files/Green-Mountain-Car-2page-projection.pdf">calculated on her own</a>--without any taxpayer funded grants--the cost to taxpayers of Green Mountain Care. Green Mountain Care, as you may know, is the name of the government health care program that is supposed to fund all uninsured Vermonters' health care. The legislature passed Green Mountain Care last session, but postponed until after the 2012 election publication of any analysis of the cost of this monstrosity. Wendy Wilton, using the figures readily available to our legislators, was able to come up with an <a href="http://vthealthcarefreedom.org/sites/default/files/Green-Mountain-Car-2page-projection.pdf">estimate of the cost shortly</a> after the legislature adjourned in May, 2011. Hmmm...wonder why the legislature is not able to complete their analysis until more than 18 months after Wendy was able to perform that feat? Is it possible that the timing is related to the 2012 election? We report. You decide. Wendy's analysis should make every Vermont taxpayer ill. She calculates that, conservatively speaking, even with a 14.5% payroll tax to fund Green Mountain Care and even assuming that IBM and other self insurers will pay the 14.5% payroll tax, in addition to providing health insurance for their employees (not likely allowed under the Federal ERISA <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/29/1144.html">preemption statute</a>), there will be a first year shortfall of over <a href="http://vthealthcarefreedom.org/sites/default/files/Green-Mountain-Car-2page-projection.pdf">$123 million dollars</a> If Vermont's self insurers do not pay the payroll tax--the more likely scenario because of ERISA preemption-- then the shortfall is <a href="http://vthealthcarefreedom.org/sites/default/files/Green-Mountain-Car-2page-projection.pdf">$477 million </a>in the first year alone. <br />
<br />
Vermonters have a right to know, before they elect the next legislature, how much Green Mountain Care is going to cost. Here is what you can do: <a href="http://vthealthcarefreedom.org/petition-splash.php">Sign the petition</a> asking the legislature to make public the cost of Green Mountain Care by September 2012. Better yet, <a href="http://vthealthcarefreedom.org/petition-splash.php">print the petition</a> and get your friends and neighbors to sign. Every Vermonter of every political stripe will want to know this information in order to make an informed choice in November 2012. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-5994626131761085072011-08-15T13:45:00.005-04:002011-08-15T14:02:00.780-04:00Mr. Buffett, Stop Coddling Congress<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>Mr. Warren Buffett wrote a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=2">column</a> for the New York Times today in which he argues that he and others in his situation should pay more taxes. There are several problems with his argument:</div><div><br />
1. He argues that he and others don't have to pay FICA "taxes". Yes, there is an income cap on FICA contributions, however, FICA was not called a "tax" until recently. FICA is the amount that you pay for your own social security retirement. At one time, it went into a trust fund or a "lock box" as Al Gore called it, payable only for social security benefits. There was a cap, because the wealthy were thought to have enough money when they retired so they would not need to contribute additional money to Social Security for their own retirement. Social Security was never meant to be a welfare program. Furthermore, companies, including those owned or invested in by Mr. Buffett match each employee's FICA contribution, yet, unlike the employee, they do not get benefits in the future for that contribution. So what happened to the trust fund or lock box? Congress has long since spent it and <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/07/13/what-happened-to-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/2/">replaced the funds with IOUs </a>to future generations. Its the spending that is the problem. </div><div></div><div></div><div><br />
2. <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704621304576267113524583554.html">If the government confiscated ALL of the taxable income of the top 1% of wealthy Americans, it would not even cover the DEFICIT for one year, never mind the national debt</a>. Its the spending that is the problem.</div><div></div><div></div><div><br />
3. Mr. Buffett's funds would be better spent in creating jobs in the private sector. Jobs in the private sector mean more people paying taxes. More people paying taxes mean more revenue to the government. More taxpayers are created when the economy is growing. When this has happened in the past, the government did not use the extra revenue to pay down the debt. They spent the money. More revenue has always meant more spending, it has never been used to pay down our debt. Its the spending that is the problem.</div><div></div><div></div><div><br />
4. There is nothing in the world stopping Mr. Buffet or President Obama, or others from contributing to paying down the national debt. In fact there is even a website for this. <a href="https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454">https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454</a> </div><div>Personally, I think it is more effective to invest in the private sector to create jobs, rather than sending it to the bottomless pit of government inefficiency. </div><div></div><div></div><div>It is the spending that is the problem.<br />
<div> </div><div>5. When the government receives more revenue, its only reaction to date is to spend it. That is why people in the Tea Party and others have called for a balanced budget amendment. Mr. Obama says we shouldn't need an amendment to do our jobs - that is true, however, history has shown that the government has never used more revenue to pay down debt. Until the spending is controlled whether by a balanced budget amendment or otherwise, an increase in revenue is only going to be spent.<var id="yui-ie-cursor"></var></div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>Jenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10252781811471302230noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-23655019699767873432011-08-09T14:15:00.003-04:002011-08-09T19:42:04.435-04:00What the President Could Have Said<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div closure_uid_b0yot6="113"> <style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style></div><br />
<div style="background: white; margin: 0.25in 0in;">In 2004, at the Democratic National Convention, Senator Barack Obama gave what Dana Perino, President Bush’s press secretary, recently called a “barn burner” of a speech. She was right, because, like many great speeches, it spoke to the mood of the country. Its message was what the country wanted and needed to hear. Sen. Obama said: “There are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers, who embrace the politics of anything goes. <span style="color: #333333;">Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America.”</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"> When the President came into office in 2009, he had an enormous store of goodwill; and the country’s need to hear the 2004 message had not diminished; indeed it had increased. Our country’s desire for unity and good feeling was certainly a substantial factor in the reason Obama was elected. Yet the President has never followed that effective rhetoric in his 2004 speech or taken advantage of that goodwill. So, the country is more divided than ever. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"> Here are some things that the President could have said in the spirit of the 2004 which would have made his Presidency more effective and would be the basis today for an agreement with Republicans on our debt crisis. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">When the President signed the executive order to close down Guantanamo Bay, he could have said: </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“I am closing this facility because I believe deeply that its presence has hurt our war on terror and our American ideals. I recognize, however, that President Bush and the Congress, both Republican and Democrats, in a time when we had just been viciously attacked and we were blind as to what our enemies had in store, sincerely believed that Guantanamo was a necessary part of our war on terror.” </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">When pundits and the media started calling Tea Partiers “racist”, instead of remaining silent, the President could have said: </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“I deplore anyone calling Americans who oppose my policies racist and I call on everyone to stop the name calling. Racism is too repellent to be thrown around so cavalierly. People who call themselves members of the Tea Party are part of our vibrant democratic tradition of dissent. While I thoroughly disagree with their ideas, I applaud their American spirit, and look forward to joining the debate with them and others on the direction our country should take.” </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In speaking about who is to blame for the recession, instead of repeatedly talking aboutwhat he “inherited”, he could have said:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“I refuse to lay blame for our economic situation on anyone. We have too much work to do together to waste time on the past. And since we are all human, there is probably enough blame to go around for everyone, including me as a member of the U.S. Senate So, lets roll up our sleeves, and look to the future, which, since this is America, is a bright one if we work together to solve our common problems.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">When Osama Bin Laden was killed, instead of taking sole personal credit, the President could have said:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“This operation was the result of a decade of hard work by men and women in both administrations. The work was started by President Bush, and I commend him for the work his administration had done to help us reach this point. President Bush and his administration deserve as much credit as my administration for this achievement.” </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Last January, after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the President gave an eloquent speech asking Americans to tone down their rhetoric. During the debate on raising the debt ceiling, however, the pundits used violent rhetoric against the Republicans and the Tea Party saying they “put a gun to [the] heads” of Congress and engaged in “extortion”, and called them “terrorists”. The President could have said: </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“We just had a robust debate on the deficit spending and the debt ceiling. The debate was robust because we have different views as to how solve our fiscal problems. But that is the essence of democracy. I am glad we have had the debate because we have difficult problems to solve, and we need to have everyone involved in solving our problems. I celebrate our vibrant democracy where different voices can be heard and issues discussed in a serious way. Debate is good for us. And the result of the debate was an agreement that, while not perfect, is the result of hard work by this Administration and by the Congress. I commend our Congressional leaders for their hard work and their passion. I look forward to more debates with Congress, and to working together with them to solve problems.” </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And when S & P downgraded our credit rating, the President could have said: </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“This happened on my watch. I take full responsibility for it. As President Truman’s famous sign said, “The Buck Stops Here”. Our policies of the last 2 ½ years have not yet been successful in keeping the country on a sound fiscal path. And because I am the person responsible for the situation we are in, I pledge to work together with Republicans and Democrats to fix this problem. While I still disagree with the Republican’s approach, there is much that we can agree on. And I applaud the Tea Party for being the first to sound the alarm about our debt. I still disagree with their solutions, but they did bring the debt issue to the country’s attention. I call the Congress to come back to Washington from their vacation a week early, and I pledge, instead of taking my planned vacation, to work on concrete proposals for the Congress to consider when it comes back.” </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If the President had said these things—taken personal responsibility, giving credit where due to opponents, talking to his own side rather than just his opponents about their rhetoric, and acknowledging the good faith of all political points of view, we would be able to focus on our problems and solve them despite our differences. Instead, the President’s silence at his allies’ name calling, his blaming President Bush and not taking responsibility, and his scolding opponents while calling them to compromise have made this country more divided than ever. The President’s lost opportunity to unite the country is truly a sad state of affairs, given the great promise of the President’s 2004 speech. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-3763571801476478032011-08-05T16:00:00.000-04:002011-08-05T16:00:47.580-04:00Leading from Behind…Obama’s economic policies put world economy at risk.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" closure_uid_wc1syn="117" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">President Obama refuses to stray from his commitment to seek economic growth by expanding government in the Keynesian tradition choosing to disregard the overwhelming evidence that his policies have failed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The stimulus, Obamacare, crushing regulation, policies that inhibit our ability to seek low cost energy, and soaring debt have combined to undermine our economy keeping unemployment at historically high levels and snuffing out growth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are following the same policies that have already led to economic crises in <country-region>Greece</country-region> and <country-region><place>Spain</place></country-region> where unemployment is now over 20%. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> In years past, the strength of the U.S. economy provided support for the rest of the world. Leading from behind has not worked in Libya and it is certainly risky strategy for our economy. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" closure_uid_wc1syn="117" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" closure_uid_wc1syn="117" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">by Charlie Bucknam</span></div><div closure_uid_wc1syn="109"></div></div>Charlie Bucknamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02211080893614506385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-22600617916150419272011-07-27T08:15:00.000-04:002011-07-27T08:15:02.314-04:00Vermont's environmental left turns on a "renewable energy" project<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">This morning Vermont Public Radio reported on the Lowell Mountain wind project. The developer, Green Mountain Power, wants to move the permitting process along faster because it needs to build the four hundred foot towers before federal subsidies run out at the end of 2012. Surprise! Wind power is not feasible without massive taxpayer subsidies. But Vermont officials have made it clear they are not going to move quickly. For years, Vermont's environmental community has pushed "renewable energy" like wind and solar. Now that a large wind farm is being developed, Vermont Natural Resources Council, all too predictably, has "concerns" about the environmental impact of the project. The leftist environmental community does not really want green energy like nuclear and wind power. It wants us all to reduce energy use---a goal that if achieved would result in massive regulation of <a href="http://bayleyhazenblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/are-you-ready-to-lose-your-liberty.html">"everything we do...in our personal and private lives", as Governor Shumlin has proclaimed</a>. So, with the assistance of the State's bureaucracy, VNRC is going to slow down the process. GMP is no longer the environmental darling developing a politically correct project; it will be forced to go through the process like other supplicants to Vermont's environmental bureaucracy. The VPR story also revealed the Agency of Natural Resource's attitude towards development it does not favor: "Don't rush us. We don't care about the economics of your project. We will go at our own pace, with no regard for your needs." ANR bureaucrats, who receive their paychecks every other week without fail, reveal their disdain for those who risk their capital to build developments that would create private sector jobs. Environmental concerns can be resolved by a bureaucracy which helps applicants meet environmental permit requirements. Not Vermont's ANR. Their imperious attitude towards applicants has been a feature of the agency for decades. The pace of permitting is slow because the bureaucracy is slow. Other states have figured out how to process environmental permits that meet environmental concerns far faster than Vermont. In New Hampshire, major projects are permitted in 30 days, and New Hampshire is hardly an environmental wasteland. In Vermont, the same project would take years. So GMP has learned that its favored project is no longer favored, and like other developers, it will likely lose massive amounts of money trying to chase a Vermont environmental permit before it loses its shirt when wind power is no longer subsidized. It may be amusing to watch environmentalists betray a renewable energy project after pushing the renewable energy agenda for years, but the not so amusing fact is that Vermont taxpayers and ratepayers will ultimately pay for this debacle. <br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-22210551939718636892011-07-19T15:48:00.000-04:002011-07-19T15:48:41.941-04:00What a Chief Executive can do in six months<div style="margin: 1em 0pt;"><b>This from the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal wouldn't it be great if we could have a Governor like this in Vermont? </b> </div><div style="margin: 1em 0pt;"><br />
</div><div style="margin: 1em 0pt;">"When Ohio Gov. John Kasich took office in January, the state faced a $7.7 billion budget deficit. Last month, he signed into law a $55.8 billion budget that cut income taxes and property taxes and eliminated the death tax.</div><div style="margin: 1em 0pt;">In a meeting with Journal editors last week, the Republican governor described this and other reforms that he has completed in his first six months in office. Ohio has lifted the cap on the number of charter schools that can be opened in the state. It has privatized five prisons and fundamentally changed its criminal sentencing practices so that those guilty of minor offences can now serve their time in community facilities. Someone "who didn't pay child support isn't put in a cell next to a murderer," said Mr. Kasich. This transition stresses rehabilitation for the criminals and cuts costs for the taxpayers.</div><div style="margin: 1em 0pt;">Then new governor has also simplified the state's warren of regulations. For example, he has made the process of acquiring an Environment Protection Agency permit more efficient, and the number of pending permits has decreased by 75% since December 2010. He has also streamlined agencies such as the state Department of Taxation, which has cut its backlog of tax disputes to 6,900 from 17,500 cases in three months."</div><div style="margin: 1em 0pt;"><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-15827807707631533122011-07-19T06:57:00.001-04:002011-07-19T07:20:46.134-04:00NPR's predictable leftward biasEvery morning,the predictability of NPR stories is dreadfully boring. This morning, NPR's story on Republican's "so-called" "cut cap and balance" was to say it had "deeper cuts than Paul Ryan's budget", and then quoted Presidential press secretary who said it was "duck, dodge and dismantle". No quote from the Republican sponsors. No mention of the fact that the Democrats, unlike the Republicans, have dodged their responsibilities by utterly failing to pass a budget; and, unlike Republicans, have utterly failed to introduce a debt ceiling bill; no mention of the fact that the President has dodged his responsibilities by utterly failing to provide specifics in his debt ceiling talks. The other day, NPR reported that Republicans "claimed" the President walked out of the debt ceiling talks, but that Democrats "said" it did not happen--when in fact it did. So NPR listeners are left with the idea, promoted by the President, and predictably babbled by NPR, that Republicans' positions are not legitimate or reasonable; that the President is being the reasonable grownup, when the opposite is true.<br />
<br />
Then it had a story about a family who couldn't afford $25.00 in birth control, and as a result, had a baby--what a horrible result!--and therefore taxpayers should be funding birth control. Those of us who work with people below the poverty level every day know that they can afford $25.00 a month for birth control. But never mind. NPR continues its campaign to let us all know about all the terrible things that will happen when the government cuts spending. <br />
<br />
Then it had a story about how HIV retroviral drugs have increased the life expectancy of Ugandans. It mentioned that the drugs became widely available in 2004, but never mentioned it was President Bush whose Pepfar program made possible for those drugs to be available to Ugandans. Of course not. <br />
<br />
Yawn.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8052421227403333133.post-57670851104060691672011-07-18T11:42:00.003-04:002011-07-18T11:46:01.162-04:00Dodd-Frank's Unintended Consequences...in AfricaThe Dodd-Frank bill is hurting our own economy in the name of "better oversight" of our financial services industry, but even I wouldn't have expected that it is also hurting the poorest among Africa's population. According to today's Wall Street Journal, Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank bill requires that anyone purchasing tin, tantalum, and tungsten in the Congo or neighboring countries must certify that the purchase is not supporting African atrocities. If they cannot do so, companies must include the statement in their annual reports that their products "may be funding African atrocities". The result is that sales of these materials in Africa has dropped 70% putting small time miners and an untold number of other Africans out of work while the atricities continue unabated.<br />
<br />
Charlie Bucknamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02211080893614506385noreply@blogger.com0