Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Still Waiting for the Evidence
In my August 25, Wait for the Evidence post, I wrote about how so many people are jumping to conclusions without hearing all the evidence. A couple of weeks ago the grand jury refused to indict Officer Wilson in the death of Michael Brown. The crowds in Ferguson, Mo. and elsewhere protested, and many rioted. While doing so they gestured with hands up in surrender, while shouting "Hands up, don't shoot". All the while many were burning businesses, cars, trash and more. They were destroying what many citizens of Ferguson had spent time, sweat and money to build up.
So even when the evidence is known, the same people who prejudged the events of the day promoted a lie. That lie was that Michael Brown was shot while his hands were up and he was surrendering to Officer Wilson.
Several witnesses, three autopsies, and physical evidence collected and examined by police and FBI, all demonstrate beyond any doubt that Brown was resisting, and attacking Wilson, which forced Wilson to fire his weapon until the threat was no more.
I truly bothers me that people continue to lie, violently so, and many in the media, politics and all walks of life, refuse to call a lie, a lie.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Obamacare Should Be Out of Gas, But...
Obamacare is Running Out of Gas
The money quote from this column is this...
There’s more on the line in this challenge than the fate of Obamacare, as if that wasn’t enough. The legitimacy of American government hangs in the balance. If the people who draft laws can lie shamelessly about them, then rewrite the laws on the fly after they have been signed, in the interests of political expediency, we don’t have a constitutional government at all, and neither Obamacare nor any other bill signed in Washington is really a “law.”
This means that any law can and will be modified to suit the intentions of anyone in power at any time. That is not a constitutional republic that we are supposed to have. No matter what law, or how good that law is, we cannot allow this president, or future presidents of either party, to simply rewrite laws as they see fit.
The money quote from this column is this...
There’s more on the line in this challenge than the fate of Obamacare, as if that wasn’t enough. The legitimacy of American government hangs in the balance. If the people who draft laws can lie shamelessly about them, then rewrite the laws on the fly after they have been signed, in the interests of political expediency, we don’t have a constitutional government at all, and neither Obamacare nor any other bill signed in Washington is really a “law.”
This means that any law can and will be modified to suit the intentions of anyone in power at any time. That is not a constitutional republic that we are supposed to have. No matter what law, or how good that law is, we cannot allow this president, or future presidents of either party, to simply rewrite laws as they see fit.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Why I Vote Republican
I will vote Republican in national elections for president, US Senate and US House of Representatives almost always. In fact, I cannot remember voting for a democrat for those offices ever. I will try to explain why.
1. The democrat party thinks you cannot prepare meals for your family without government guidance. Michelle Obama's food police initiative is a prime example. Also, the war of sugars, fat and sodium in food, and claims of helping you fight obesity is pervasive.
2. The democrat party thinks the government should stay our of the lives of LGBT community, but cannot extract themselves from your dealing with fertility, birth control and abortion. The claims that republicans hate women because they refuse to pay for other people having abortions or using birth control are over the top ridiculous. Sandra Fluck and the animated Julia video prove the democrats definitely continue to have a say so in your bedroom.
3. The democrat party thinks you cannot choose for yourself where your children get their education, and refuse to support school vouchers. Instead, while they send their own children to private schools, they deny poor people access to higher quality schools by supporting the NEA and their opposition to vouchers.
4. The democrat party thinks black people cannot obtain any form of photo identification to show at the voting place. Even though photo ID is required for countless activities that blacks participate in daily, such as boarding planes, renting cars and hotel rooms, purchasing items with checks or credit, and entering public buildings like the capital, courthouses and federal buildings.
5. The democrat party thinks jobs a a function of government and not business. Hillary Clinton, presumed front runner for the democrat nomination for president in 2106 said as much while campaigning for other democrats.
6. The democrat party calls a 7% increase in the budget a cut because it was not an 8% increase. Basic math would be better understood if school vouchers were permitted.
7. The democrat party does not understand basic economics of the free market, and repeats the false narrative that republicans believe in the trickle down theory. In fact, no republican trickle down theory has ever been promoted. When Ronald Reagan proposed that if the government collected less in taxes, then people would keep more of their money and therefore spend more, the economy would grow. Liberal commentators called this the trickle down theory, and democrats repeated it, often.
8. Democrats do not believe that lower tax rates will generate more tax revenue. Remember that the rate is expressed as a percentage, and the revenue is the amount of money remitted to the IRS. John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush all proved that lowering rates will increase revenue, and yet democrats refuse to see this for what it is.
9. Democrats claim Obamacare is working and working quite well. While this is opinion, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, or Obamacare) is not solving any of the problems it has been claimed to address. Rates are climbing for most, and higher than historical increases. People did in fact lose their health insurance and doctors despite promises form almost every democrat they would keep them. Most people in polls state they want to see Obamacare repealed. And the actions by President Obama to delay and/or wave multiple groups of citizens and multiple requirements of the law, proves this law does not live up to its billing.
10. The democrat party believes that the science of global warming is settled. This is patently false as more data comes into the public domain and more scientists profess opposition to the alarm-ism. To say the science is settled when so little is actually known about climate records and models, and when so many real scientists question to theory, is simply unscientific in nature.
11. The democrat party thinks guns kill people, instead of people killing people. The number of mass shootings has actually not increased according to FBI crime statistics, and several studies conclude the same. The fact that nearly all mass shootings occur in gun-free zones, where no one can shoot back, is proof that unarmed citizenry is at greater risk than an armed one. While any death by gunfire is horrible and tragic, the gun is not the cause, but the tool. When an armed citizen is nearby when a mass shooting begins, the shooting typically ends with fewer injured and dead, and there are countless examples of this scenario.
In general, the democrat party does not trust Americans to make decisions about their own lives on a daily basis, and does not think Americans can get along in life without persistent help from the government.
In general, republicans think that government should be seen and not heard, and should allow Americans to do what they do best: innovate, create, build and improve their lives for themselves, their customers and their families.
1. The democrat party thinks you cannot prepare meals for your family without government guidance. Michelle Obama's food police initiative is a prime example. Also, the war of sugars, fat and sodium in food, and claims of helping you fight obesity is pervasive.
2. The democrat party thinks the government should stay our of the lives of LGBT community, but cannot extract themselves from your dealing with fertility, birth control and abortion. The claims that republicans hate women because they refuse to pay for other people having abortions or using birth control are over the top ridiculous. Sandra Fluck and the animated Julia video prove the democrats definitely continue to have a say so in your bedroom.
3. The democrat party thinks you cannot choose for yourself where your children get their education, and refuse to support school vouchers. Instead, while they send their own children to private schools, they deny poor people access to higher quality schools by supporting the NEA and their opposition to vouchers.
4. The democrat party thinks black people cannot obtain any form of photo identification to show at the voting place. Even though photo ID is required for countless activities that blacks participate in daily, such as boarding planes, renting cars and hotel rooms, purchasing items with checks or credit, and entering public buildings like the capital, courthouses and federal buildings.
5. The democrat party thinks jobs a a function of government and not business. Hillary Clinton, presumed front runner for the democrat nomination for president in 2106 said as much while campaigning for other democrats.
6. The democrat party calls a 7% increase in the budget a cut because it was not an 8% increase. Basic math would be better understood if school vouchers were permitted.
7. The democrat party does not understand basic economics of the free market, and repeats the false narrative that republicans believe in the trickle down theory. In fact, no republican trickle down theory has ever been promoted. When Ronald Reagan proposed that if the government collected less in taxes, then people would keep more of their money and therefore spend more, the economy would grow. Liberal commentators called this the trickle down theory, and democrats repeated it, often.
8. Democrats do not believe that lower tax rates will generate more tax revenue. Remember that the rate is expressed as a percentage, and the revenue is the amount of money remitted to the IRS. John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush all proved that lowering rates will increase revenue, and yet democrats refuse to see this for what it is.
9. Democrats claim Obamacare is working and working quite well. While this is opinion, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, or Obamacare) is not solving any of the problems it has been claimed to address. Rates are climbing for most, and higher than historical increases. People did in fact lose their health insurance and doctors despite promises form almost every democrat they would keep them. Most people in polls state they want to see Obamacare repealed. And the actions by President Obama to delay and/or wave multiple groups of citizens and multiple requirements of the law, proves this law does not live up to its billing.
10. The democrat party believes that the science of global warming is settled. This is patently false as more data comes into the public domain and more scientists profess opposition to the alarm-ism. To say the science is settled when so little is actually known about climate records and models, and when so many real scientists question to theory, is simply unscientific in nature.
11. The democrat party thinks guns kill people, instead of people killing people. The number of mass shootings has actually not increased according to FBI crime statistics, and several studies conclude the same. The fact that nearly all mass shootings occur in gun-free zones, where no one can shoot back, is proof that unarmed citizenry is at greater risk than an armed one. While any death by gunfire is horrible and tragic, the gun is not the cause, but the tool. When an armed citizen is nearby when a mass shooting begins, the shooting typically ends with fewer injured and dead, and there are countless examples of this scenario.
In general, the democrat party does not trust Americans to make decisions about their own lives on a daily basis, and does not think Americans can get along in life without persistent help from the government.
In general, republicans think that government should be seen and not heard, and should allow Americans to do what they do best: innovate, create, build and improve their lives for themselves, their customers and their families.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Is Ebola a "Black Swan"?
Black Swan Theory (Wiki)
I only became aware of this theory, which says there are events that take place without advance warning, but can have a large or extreme impact, and in hindsight, we should have seen it coming.
Many people are obsessing over Ebola, in turn fretting over who may have it, can I catch it, and what to do about all of that. The media lately is trying to convince Americans they are making mountains out of molehills. Are they?
Ebola was discovered and identified in Africa in the 1970's, where there have been repeated smaller outbreaks, relatively speaking. Now that world travel has lead to an unprecedented spread to the USA, many people are very worried, and rightly so. The disease has a high mortality rate, depending on a variety factors, such as general health of the patient at the time of infection. In African outbreaks the mortality rate is as high a 90%.
We are also being told that we can only contract the virus by exchanging bodily fluids with a symptomatic carrier. The incubation period is up to 21 days, after which you can be assured you have not been infected.
This all means we have a very low probability of catching the disease, but if we do, we have a high probability of dying from it. These attributes make Ebola a black swan of sorts.
Given what we do know, the question should be what policy is appropriate for dealing with potential infections. Should we quarantine people who have been near others we know to be infected? Under what circumstances should we quarantine people or not?
I only became aware of this theory, which says there are events that take place without advance warning, but can have a large or extreme impact, and in hindsight, we should have seen it coming.
Many people are obsessing over Ebola, in turn fretting over who may have it, can I catch it, and what to do about all of that. The media lately is trying to convince Americans they are making mountains out of molehills. Are they?
Ebola was discovered and identified in Africa in the 1970's, where there have been repeated smaller outbreaks, relatively speaking. Now that world travel has lead to an unprecedented spread to the USA, many people are very worried, and rightly so. The disease has a high mortality rate, depending on a variety factors, such as general health of the patient at the time of infection. In African outbreaks the mortality rate is as high a 90%.
We are also being told that we can only contract the virus by exchanging bodily fluids with a symptomatic carrier. The incubation period is up to 21 days, after which you can be assured you have not been infected.
This all means we have a very low probability of catching the disease, but if we do, we have a high probability of dying from it. These attributes make Ebola a black swan of sorts.
Given what we do know, the question should be what policy is appropriate for dealing with potential infections. Should we quarantine people who have been near others we know to be infected? Under what circumstances should we quarantine people or not?
Friday, October 3, 2014
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Government Incompetence
Just in the recent past we have learned that the Secret Service has had multiple lapses in securing the life of the President. This is their highest priority mission.
On multiple occasions there have been individuals jump the White House fence and enter the compound without clearance. The second man actually entered the East Room of the mansion, where Presidents often hold ceremonies and deliver speeches.
In Atlanta, at the Center for Disease Control (CDC), and armed security guard from the CDC contracted security agency rode in the same elevator with the president. This was a violation of SS protection protocol.
The IRS routinely pays tax refunds to people who are not entitled to one. Recent estimates say this amounts to billions of dollars per year.
Medicare and Medicaid fraud annually is very high, and is routinely the subject of campaign promises of candidates for congress and the Oval Office.
TSA agents are often discovered as not stopping bombs that are actually tests to see how proficient they are at stopping bombs. At the same time they frequently are criticized for stopping small children, elderly, handicapped, and even military personnel for extra scrutiny at airports.
We all know about the lack of security provide State Department personnel in Benghazi, the IRS targeting of conservatives, the Department of Justice spying on members of the press, and the VA hospital scandal.
We also know that many "green" projects funded by the federal government have collapsed into bankruptcy.
High tax rates, excessive regulation, and arbitrary enforcement of laws all lead to a poor economy, while education declines.
Somebody tell me please, what does this government do to deserve our trust and support?
On multiple occasions there have been individuals jump the White House fence and enter the compound without clearance. The second man actually entered the East Room of the mansion, where Presidents often hold ceremonies and deliver speeches.
In Atlanta, at the Center for Disease Control (CDC), and armed security guard from the CDC contracted security agency rode in the same elevator with the president. This was a violation of SS protection protocol.
The IRS routinely pays tax refunds to people who are not entitled to one. Recent estimates say this amounts to billions of dollars per year.
Medicare and Medicaid fraud annually is very high, and is routinely the subject of campaign promises of candidates for congress and the Oval Office.
TSA agents are often discovered as not stopping bombs that are actually tests to see how proficient they are at stopping bombs. At the same time they frequently are criticized for stopping small children, elderly, handicapped, and even military personnel for extra scrutiny at airports.
We all know about the lack of security provide State Department personnel in Benghazi, the IRS targeting of conservatives, the Department of Justice spying on members of the press, and the VA hospital scandal.
We also know that many "green" projects funded by the federal government have collapsed into bankruptcy.
High tax rates, excessive regulation, and arbitrary enforcement of laws all lead to a poor economy, while education declines.
Somebody tell me please, what does this government do to deserve our trust and support?
Monday, September 22, 2014
Climate Science is Not Settled
Dr. Steven E. Koonin wrote this column in the Wall Street Journal, and explains how the science is not settled, and we need to remain focused on the scientific methods, not exploiting data to push any agenda.
Climate Science Is Not Settled
According to Koonin the degree to which climate data is collected and analyzed leaves us lacking in our ability to make climate projections. This means that we need to continue to do more research, and we also need to improve our modeling with more granularity in the data.
I believe that many politicians and others are attempting to stifle research and debate by scientists and the population, convincing you that we need to act as they prescribe. This amounts to a power grab, with the goal being income redistribution. They stifle debate by cherry picking data, omitting that which does not support the theory, and including that which does. Here is one example cited by Koonin.
"Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century."
Remember President Obama's speech in which he said about his election, that this would be the moment when the rise of the oceans slowed? Koonin also cites the fact that Arctic ice may be lacking, but Antarctic ice is as extremely high levels. Al Gore and other climate alarmists won't concede that fact.
Koonin's main point is that we must continue the research simply because the climate does change continuously, and we should better understand the how and why of it. I agree. But if we abandon scientific methods we may regret what our plans may result in.
From the article is this statement which quite simply states what we're up against if when we debate this issue:
"While the past two decades have seen progress in climate science, the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it. This decidedly unsettled state highlights what should be obvious: Understanding climate, at the level of detail relevant to human influences, is a very, very difficult problem."
Climate Science Is Not Settled
According to Koonin the degree to which climate data is collected and analyzed leaves us lacking in our ability to make climate projections. This means that we need to continue to do more research, and we also need to improve our modeling with more granularity in the data.
I believe that many politicians and others are attempting to stifle research and debate by scientists and the population, convincing you that we need to act as they prescribe. This amounts to a power grab, with the goal being income redistribution. They stifle debate by cherry picking data, omitting that which does not support the theory, and including that which does. Here is one example cited by Koonin.
"Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century."
Remember President Obama's speech in which he said about his election, that this would be the moment when the rise of the oceans slowed? Koonin also cites the fact that Arctic ice may be lacking, but Antarctic ice is as extremely high levels. Al Gore and other climate alarmists won't concede that fact.
Koonin's main point is that we must continue the research simply because the climate does change continuously, and we should better understand the how and why of it. I agree. But if we abandon scientific methods we may regret what our plans may result in.
From the article is this statement which quite simply states what we're up against if when we debate this issue:
"While the past two decades have seen progress in climate science, the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it. This decidedly unsettled state highlights what should be obvious: Understanding climate, at the level of detail relevant to human influences, is a very, very difficult problem."
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Who Needs Evidence?
Heroic Story, Contradictory Calls
Yet another example of people running with a story, apparently based on emotion instead of facts. It seems the reports of this heroic football player jumping to the rescue of his young nephew from drowning were perhaps premature. There are now questions about the truthfulness of Josh Shaw's statements.
I wonder if the truth will eventually get out, or if the first reports will be the lasting images and memories. In America's quest for a story many are forgetting to gather facts and evidence yet again.
Yet another example of people running with a story, apparently based on emotion instead of facts. It seems the reports of this heroic football player jumping to the rescue of his young nephew from drowning were perhaps premature. There are now questions about the truthfulness of Josh Shaw's statements.
I wonder if the truth will eventually get out, or if the first reports will be the lasting images and memories. In America's quest for a story many are forgetting to gather facts and evidence yet again.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
More Evidence Not Needed
Former Marine Brutally Beaten
So here we have vigilante justice. A group of men took it upon themselves to beat two men up, apparently because someone had to pay for Michael Brown's death in Ferguson, MO. As I made clear in my previous post, people are jumping into the fray without knowing any or all of the evidence in this case. And here justice means beating two white men in Mississippi, hundreds of miles away from Ferguson. No connection to the events in Ferguson at all, just vigilante justice. I hope all 20 of these men are found and brought to justice. I hope Attorney General Eric Holder puts all the resources of the FBI and DOJ on this case also.
So here we have vigilante justice. A group of men took it upon themselves to beat two men up, apparently because someone had to pay for Michael Brown's death in Ferguson, MO. As I made clear in my previous post, people are jumping into the fray without knowing any or all of the evidence in this case. And here justice means beating two white men in Mississippi, hundreds of miles away from Ferguson. No connection to the events in Ferguson at all, just vigilante justice. I hope all 20 of these men are found and brought to justice. I hope Attorney General Eric Holder puts all the resources of the FBI and DOJ on this case also.
Monday, August 25, 2014
Wait for the Evidence
I am truly disheartened by what has transpired in Ferguson, MO this month. I find that people who hare proclaiming guilt or innocence without fact or evidence are trampling on the rights of all of us to a fair trial. Claiming fairness to justify unfair treatment is true hypocrisy. Blaming the cop for shooting an unarmed black teen without evidence or fact is no difference that if that were truly the case. Those assuming facts not in evidence is exactly what you accuse this officer of doing.
In several cases in recent and not so recent history, Americans have jumped into the fray by taking sides of one party or another to claim guilt or innocence. When a high profile athlete is accused of rape, others rush in to claim he would never do it. When a white police officer shoots and kills a black teenager, many blacks and whites like jump in to claim murder by the cop.
If you were not in the hotel room with that man and that woman, you cannot possibly know if he did or did not. If she said yes or no. Without witnessing or without evidence, you cannot know if that shooter was defending himself legitimately or if he was being attacked.
What do any of us really know? With all the cases that have been made public, when someone is found either guilty or innocent in a court of law, why do so many people continue to take sides in the absence of evidence or fact?
Just this week we had a police officer in Texas shot and killed during a traffic stop. In recent years there have been many police shot with their own weapons, presumably by someone without his own weapon, or he would not have taken the officer's. It happens. It could have happened again.
Would you recommend someone you do not know for a job or cosign for a bank loan? Of course not, since you do not know who you would be endorsing. That person could be a high integrity individual who does not have the experience for the job, or the income for the loan payments. That person could be a criminal with violent history, or other reasons why you would not offer a job or loan. So why would you endorse the cop or the victim that was shot?
Without knowing exactly the events that lead to the shooting, or the knowledge that either party had as the encounter began, or the conditions of the parties involved, jumping to conclusions about guilt or innocence is a bad thing. Our justice system, flawed as it may be, is designed to bring facts to bear so that an impartial party can decide the case. We must let that play out before the lynch mobs prevails.
When we have other high profile individuals, such as governors, cabinet members, and people who just show up on the scene, to decide without evidence of fact, we have gone wrong. Very wrong.
If we allow the presumption of guilt to be the force to decide all cases, we lose. Let's all think about the possibilities, wait for evidence to be discovered, then decide.
In several cases in recent and not so recent history, Americans have jumped into the fray by taking sides of one party or another to claim guilt or innocence. When a high profile athlete is accused of rape, others rush in to claim he would never do it. When a white police officer shoots and kills a black teenager, many blacks and whites like jump in to claim murder by the cop.
If you were not in the hotel room with that man and that woman, you cannot possibly know if he did or did not. If she said yes or no. Without witnessing or without evidence, you cannot know if that shooter was defending himself legitimately or if he was being attacked.
What do any of us really know? With all the cases that have been made public, when someone is found either guilty or innocent in a court of law, why do so many people continue to take sides in the absence of evidence or fact?
Just this week we had a police officer in Texas shot and killed during a traffic stop. In recent years there have been many police shot with their own weapons, presumably by someone without his own weapon, or he would not have taken the officer's. It happens. It could have happened again.
Would you recommend someone you do not know for a job or cosign for a bank loan? Of course not, since you do not know who you would be endorsing. That person could be a high integrity individual who does not have the experience for the job, or the income for the loan payments. That person could be a criminal with violent history, or other reasons why you would not offer a job or loan. So why would you endorse the cop or the victim that was shot?
Without knowing exactly the events that lead to the shooting, or the knowledge that either party had as the encounter began, or the conditions of the parties involved, jumping to conclusions about guilt or innocence is a bad thing. Our justice system, flawed as it may be, is designed to bring facts to bear so that an impartial party can decide the case. We must let that play out before the lynch mobs prevails.
When we have other high profile individuals, such as governors, cabinet members, and people who just show up on the scene, to decide without evidence of fact, we have gone wrong. Very wrong.
If we allow the presumption of guilt to be the force to decide all cases, we lose. Let's all think about the possibilities, wait for evidence to be discovered, then decide.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Turn the Economy Loose
John Heyward of Human Events has a fine column today about corporate taxes and it shows the best way to really allow the US economy to fire on all cylinders.
Economic Patriotism and the End of Corporate Taxes
I"n the column Heyward makes reference to the Fair Tax. The learn more about that proposed change to our tax code, visit their site at FairTax Organization.
Economic Patriotism and the End of Corporate Taxes
I"n the column Heyward makes reference to the Fair Tax. The learn more about that proposed change to our tax code, visit their site at FairTax Organization.
Friday, July 18, 2014
Murdering the Middle Class
Wayne Allyn Root Column
Obama fraudulently represented the Affordable Care Act and it benefits to Americans. Other people are in prison for far lesser examples of fraud. This column succinctly states the case for how President Obama is destroying the middle class.
Obama fraudulently represented the Affordable Care Act and it benefits to Americans. Other people are in prison for far lesser examples of fraud. This column succinctly states the case for how President Obama is destroying the middle class.
Monday, July 14, 2014
Not so Common Core
Bill Gates is paying for Common Core without actually developing and testing such standards for education. The linked articles below provide details about just how Common Core standards are not actually what they are being represented as.
Audit of Bill Gates Spending
The writer of this blog investigated the amounts or money spend by Gates, and who is on the receiving end of the checks.
Bill Gates' Meddling in Education
The writer here explains how Gates' involvement in Common Core is not what it would appear to be.
Audit of Bill Gates Spending
The writer of this blog investigated the amounts or money spend by Gates, and who is on the receiving end of the checks.
Bill Gates' Meddling in Education
The writer here explains how Gates' involvement in Common Core is not what it would appear to be.
Thursday, May 8, 2014
War on Women
The "Real War on Women"
When democrats use the term war on women to denigrate republicans, they cheapen the term. There is a real war on women, and the above link proves it is not republicans conducting it.
When democrats use the term war on women to denigrate republicans, they cheapen the term. There is a real war on women, and the above link proves it is not republicans conducting it.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Rail vs Pipeline
Tankers Carrying Oil Derail in Virginia
North Dakota Oil Train Derailed
Environmentalists object to building the Keystone XL Pipeline. They claim the pipeline would harm the environment. So currently the oil that would be flowing via KXL is being shipped via train. We now have a second derailment of oil tanker train cars causing spills and fires and much damage.
So which is safer? If we continue to pump oil and not build KXL, then more crude oil will be on the railways across America. More people and property will be at risk, in addition to the environment.
When was the last time you heard of an underground oil pipeline accident? Put that in the perspective of two oil trains derailed in less than 4 months.
North Dakota Oil Train Derailed
Environmentalists object to building the Keystone XL Pipeline. They claim the pipeline would harm the environment. So currently the oil that would be flowing via KXL is being shipped via train. We now have a second derailment of oil tanker train cars causing spills and fires and much damage.
So which is safer? If we continue to pump oil and not build KXL, then more crude oil will be on the railways across America. More people and property will be at risk, in addition to the environment.
When was the last time you heard of an underground oil pipeline accident? Put that in the perspective of two oil trains derailed in less than 4 months.
Friday, April 11, 2014
Budget Director to Replace Secretary of HHS
Sebelius Resigns
Matthews Burwell to Replace Sebelius
So Kathleen Sebelius resigned as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), and President Obama is replacing her with Sylvia Matthews Burwell, the White House Director of Budget Management. This is not a good decision on his part.
Matthews Burwell is the director of the budget, but the White House has never passed a budget under Obama. So what on earth qualifies Matthews to be the Secretary of HHS? Apparently she is responsible for the government shutting down parks and monuments during the sequestration shutdown, which was blamed on Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx).
Apparently Obama is not so concerned with qualifications for various jobs or he would appoint qualified people to those. But if you can do your political hacking and hurt opponents in the process, you get promoted to cabinet secretary.
Matthews Burwell to Replace Sebelius
So Kathleen Sebelius resigned as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), and President Obama is replacing her with Sylvia Matthews Burwell, the White House Director of Budget Management. This is not a good decision on his part.
Matthews Burwell is the director of the budget, but the White House has never passed a budget under Obama. So what on earth qualifies Matthews to be the Secretary of HHS? Apparently she is responsible for the government shutting down parks and monuments during the sequestration shutdown, which was blamed on Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx).
Apparently Obama is not so concerned with qualifications for various jobs or he would appoint qualified people to those. But if you can do your political hacking and hurt opponents in the process, you get promoted to cabinet secretary.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Hank Aaron Compares Republicans That Oppose Obama To KKK
Hank Aaron Compares Republicans That Oppose Obama To KKK « CBS Atlanta
This is a ridiculous statement to make and absolutely without basis in fact.
1. Mr. Aaron, do you know that the only member of the KKK to be elected to the US Senate was a Democrat from West Virginia, Robert Byrd?
2. Do you know that a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats? In fact, Democrat Senator Byrd and other tried to filibuster that bill.
3. We have a two party system where the parties are obviously opposed to one another. The fact that Republicans oppose a Democrat president is no more offensive than the disdain the Democrats shared for George W. Bush.
4. Opposition is healthy for the country, or we end up with single party rule. Single party rule has no obstacles to what it can do. Would you like to risk that with either party?
5. What has the Democrat party done for you lately? Poverty? Jobs? Schools? Black on black crime?
6. Name calling is the last resort of a person losing the argument.
This is a ridiculous statement to make and absolutely without basis in fact.
1. Mr. Aaron, do you know that the only member of the KKK to be elected to the US Senate was a Democrat from West Virginia, Robert Byrd?
2. Do you know that a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats? In fact, Democrat Senator Byrd and other tried to filibuster that bill.
3. We have a two party system where the parties are obviously opposed to one another. The fact that Republicans oppose a Democrat president is no more offensive than the disdain the Democrats shared for George W. Bush.
4. Opposition is healthy for the country, or we end up with single party rule. Single party rule has no obstacles to what it can do. Would you like to risk that with either party?
5. What has the Democrat party done for you lately? Poverty? Jobs? Schools? Black on black crime?
6. Name calling is the last resort of a person losing the argument.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Is Paycheck Fairness Already Here?
Will Paycheck Fairness Act Help Women?
Key paragraph from this article:
"The so-called Paycheck Fairness Act won’t lead to fairer pay. By establishing more red tape, it will lead to more lawsuits, higher business costs, and fewer job opportunities. Then why are Democrats pushing this bill as a solution to the “War on Women” if it doesn’t actually help (and in many cases hurts) women? Politics, of course."
Key paragraph from this article:
"The so-called Paycheck Fairness Act won’t lead to fairer pay. By establishing more red tape, it will lead to more lawsuits, higher business costs, and fewer job opportunities. Then why are Democrats pushing this bill as a solution to the “War on Women” if it doesn’t actually help (and in many cases hurts) women? Politics, of course."
Thursday, March 27, 2014
What Happened to the Indignation?
So today Chris Christie's hired lawyers reported the governor had nothing to do with 'Bridgegate'.
Liberals and democrats alike scoffed at the report, claiming it would naturally find Christie innocent, because the lawyers reporting work for the governor. Hmm. Let's extrapolate on that theory.
The Obama administration has several scandals it is facing. Well facing may not be the best word to use.
The Benghazi scandal was investigated by the Departement of State.
The IRS targeting conservatives, the Justice Department investigating reports at Fox and AP, the Justice Department running guns to Mexican drug lords, were all investigated by Eric Holder and crew.
I really do not recall any liberal or democrat claiming that is improper or biased at all. I do recall Mr. Obama proclaiming indignation at those scandals, claiming he would get to the bottom of each. Then more recently dismissing them as "phony scandals".
Liberals and democrats alike scoffed at the report, claiming it would naturally find Christie innocent, because the lawyers reporting work for the governor. Hmm. Let's extrapolate on that theory.
The Obama administration has several scandals it is facing. Well facing may not be the best word to use.
The Benghazi scandal was investigated by the Departement of State.
The IRS targeting conservatives, the Justice Department investigating reports at Fox and AP, the Justice Department running guns to Mexican drug lords, were all investigated by Eric Holder and crew.
I really do not recall any liberal or democrat claiming that is improper or biased at all. I do recall Mr. Obama proclaiming indignation at those scandals, claiming he would get to the bottom of each. Then more recently dismissing them as "phony scandals".
Monday, March 17, 2014
Contradictions Over PPACA
The politics surrounding the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (PPACA, Obamacare) is full of contradictions.
1. The PPACA was supposed to do several things including lower premiums, insure the uninsured, and improve quality and access to health care. Yet more the five million insured families had the insurance cancelled, and only 5% of those purchasing insurance via health care.gov were previously uninsured.
2. Most people purchasing insurance in the exchange have reported increased premiums, increased deductibles, and limited choices, or combinations of the three. The exchanges only permit three levels of insurance plans: silver, gold and platinum. And some states don't allow all three of those.
3. Labor unions overwhelmingly supported the passage of the act, but now many are asking for relief from the requirements and mandates that come with it.
4. As good as this act was billed to be, it came with delays built into it. Many of the more painful provisions did not take affect until after the presidential election cycle ended, and Obama was safely re-elected. If it was actually that good, why wait?
5. This is the biggest contradiction of all. The republicans have tried and tried to repeal the law, and delay the law if not repealed. Senator Ted Cruz tried to include the repeal of the law in the budget dealings which resulted in the government shutdown. If Cruz had been successful in his tactics to delay Obamacare in the budget deal, the president said he would have vetoed it. In fact, the president has said on multiple occasions that he would veto any bill aimed at delaying Obamacare. Meanwhile, the president issued 29 separate executive orders doing just that, delaying various mandates and parts of the law.
6. Is it a tax or a penalty? The answer to that question depends on who is asking. The supporters of Obamacare argue it is a tax when it suits their purpose, and a penalty when that is the politically expedient answer.
7. Congress voted on the bill without even reading it. Talk about not only the strangest contradiction, but also the most stupid. Exactly how can you argue the benefits of 2400 pages of legalese without reading it, and then claim you have to read it to know what's in it? Not so incidentally, the HHS has added nearly 20,000 pages of regulations to explain and interpret the 2400 pages of the bill. Those pages were added after the bill became law.
8. Finally the contradiction on what republicans offered to the conversation before voting on the bill. Months before the bill was written there was a meeting of members of both parties, and the president and vice-president which was televised. During the discussions, several republicans, including a couple of medical doctors, suggested several options for debate, including legal and insurance reforms. To their collective face the president responded with praise for the good ideas and room for further discussion. Then the president left the room for a press conference where he quickly stated the republicans had no new ideas worthy of discussion, and suggested we "...must do something."
Now that democrats have realized what they're up against in the November mid-term elections, they are beginning to talk about fixing Obamacare. Even though the government spent more than $700 million and 3 years developing the web site exchange, they are are not talking about fixing that. They are talking about fixing various parts of the original bill. Too late, I say.
The bill is so comprehensively bad, that it must be repealed and we must start over. Closing half of the people out of the debate by improperly declaring they have nothing to offer is bad legislative process.
1. The PPACA was supposed to do several things including lower premiums, insure the uninsured, and improve quality and access to health care. Yet more the five million insured families had the insurance cancelled, and only 5% of those purchasing insurance via health care.gov were previously uninsured.
2. Most people purchasing insurance in the exchange have reported increased premiums, increased deductibles, and limited choices, or combinations of the three. The exchanges only permit three levels of insurance plans: silver, gold and platinum. And some states don't allow all three of those.
3. Labor unions overwhelmingly supported the passage of the act, but now many are asking for relief from the requirements and mandates that come with it.
4. As good as this act was billed to be, it came with delays built into it. Many of the more painful provisions did not take affect until after the presidential election cycle ended, and Obama was safely re-elected. If it was actually that good, why wait?
5. This is the biggest contradiction of all. The republicans have tried and tried to repeal the law, and delay the law if not repealed. Senator Ted Cruz tried to include the repeal of the law in the budget dealings which resulted in the government shutdown. If Cruz had been successful in his tactics to delay Obamacare in the budget deal, the president said he would have vetoed it. In fact, the president has said on multiple occasions that he would veto any bill aimed at delaying Obamacare. Meanwhile, the president issued 29 separate executive orders doing just that, delaying various mandates and parts of the law.
6. Is it a tax or a penalty? The answer to that question depends on who is asking. The supporters of Obamacare argue it is a tax when it suits their purpose, and a penalty when that is the politically expedient answer.
7. Congress voted on the bill without even reading it. Talk about not only the strangest contradiction, but also the most stupid. Exactly how can you argue the benefits of 2400 pages of legalese without reading it, and then claim you have to read it to know what's in it? Not so incidentally, the HHS has added nearly 20,000 pages of regulations to explain and interpret the 2400 pages of the bill. Those pages were added after the bill became law.
8. Finally the contradiction on what republicans offered to the conversation before voting on the bill. Months before the bill was written there was a meeting of members of both parties, and the president and vice-president which was televised. During the discussions, several republicans, including a couple of medical doctors, suggested several options for debate, including legal and insurance reforms. To their collective face the president responded with praise for the good ideas and room for further discussion. Then the president left the room for a press conference where he quickly stated the republicans had no new ideas worthy of discussion, and suggested we "...must do something."
Now that democrats have realized what they're up against in the November mid-term elections, they are beginning to talk about fixing Obamacare. Even though the government spent more than $700 million and 3 years developing the web site exchange, they are are not talking about fixing that. They are talking about fixing various parts of the original bill. Too late, I say.
The bill is so comprehensively bad, that it must be repealed and we must start over. Closing half of the people out of the debate by improperly declaring they have nothing to offer is bad legislative process.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Tax Rates Too High
Cash Abroad Article
As long as corporate tax rates remain as high as they are, companies across the country will continue to keep their money off shore. It is an easy decision to make for the stock holders they are accountable to for making as much as possible. Paying less tax to countries anywhere, rather than more to the IRS, makes sense.
Politicians like to talk about taxes and tax rates incorrectly. They think higher rates equates to more tax dollars collected, but they are incorrect. They also like to think that changing the tax code will simply mean people will do what they always did, and pay higher taxes in the process. What it really means is people will find a way to manipulate the system to allow them to pay the least amount of taxes possible, keeping more for the companies.
Politicians need to lower tax rates on corporations, to a point where they elect to bring that money home. Once back on shore, they will invest it, causing the economy to grow. The increased investments will result in higher incomes and higher tax revenue for government at all levels. Unemployment would also decrease as the investment would result in expansion of existing business and into new markets.
As long as corporate tax rates remain as high as they are, companies across the country will continue to keep their money off shore. It is an easy decision to make for the stock holders they are accountable to for making as much as possible. Paying less tax to countries anywhere, rather than more to the IRS, makes sense.
Politicians like to talk about taxes and tax rates incorrectly. They think higher rates equates to more tax dollars collected, but they are incorrect. They also like to think that changing the tax code will simply mean people will do what they always did, and pay higher taxes in the process. What it really means is people will find a way to manipulate the system to allow them to pay the least amount of taxes possible, keeping more for the companies.
Politicians need to lower tax rates on corporations, to a point where they elect to bring that money home. Once back on shore, they will invest it, causing the economy to grow. The increased investments will result in higher incomes and higher tax revenue for government at all levels. Unemployment would also decrease as the investment would result in expansion of existing business and into new markets.
Friday, March 7, 2014
Zero Tolerance = Real Stupidity
Suspended for using a "Finger Gun" - Article
I agree with the congressman who thinks schools need more flexibility in handing out punishments for misbehavior. However, is a 10 year old using a "finger gun" really worthy of any punishment at all? I say no.
There have been many reports of young children suspended for using weapons that consist of food products like Pop-Tarts and chicken fingers. Now we also have this about a 10 year old boy who pointed his finger at a fellow student. Shame on him.
The teacher who witnessed this horrific event was so angry she could neither look at him nor talk to him. Imagine that. The teacher and the principal should both be suspended for being stupid.
I agree with the congressman who thinks schools need more flexibility in handing out punishments for misbehavior. However, is a 10 year old using a "finger gun" really worthy of any punishment at all? I say no.
There have been many reports of young children suspended for using weapons that consist of food products like Pop-Tarts and chicken fingers. Now we also have this about a 10 year old boy who pointed his finger at a fellow student. Shame on him.
The teacher who witnessed this horrific event was so angry she could neither look at him nor talk to him. Imagine that. The teacher and the principal should both be suspended for being stupid.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Connecting the IRS Dots
Bradley A Smith Op-Ed
Fake scandal, eh Mr. President? This column connects the dots that lead from the Citizen United decision by the Supreme Court, to the IRS unfairly scrutinizing conservative groups applying for 501(c)(4) status.
Fake scandal, eh Mr. President? This column connects the dots that lead from the Citizen United decision by the Supreme Court, to the IRS unfairly scrutinizing conservative groups applying for 501(c)(4) status.
Delay! And I Don't Mean Tom Delay
New Obamacare Delay
Voters better remember this, and all the 29 previous changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Ace (PPACA or Obamacare). The president and democrats supporting Obamacare like to point out to those opposed to the law, that it is the law of the land, and you can't change or repeal it. However, that argument does not apply to the signor.
Obama has changed his own signature piece of legislation 29 times, and now another time. Not only is changing laws arbitrarily and without congressional passing a bill unconstitutional, but it indicates just how bad this law really is.
Republicans are often called obstructionists and dysfunctional, for their opposition to Obamacare, and other parts of the liberal agenda. But democrats, especially Obama, are functional for passing a law without reading it, and then unconstitutionally changing it 30 times?
Voters better remember this, and all the 29 previous changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Ace (PPACA or Obamacare). The president and democrats supporting Obamacare like to point out to those opposed to the law, that it is the law of the land, and you can't change or repeal it. However, that argument does not apply to the signor.
Obama has changed his own signature piece of legislation 29 times, and now another time. Not only is changing laws arbitrarily and without congressional passing a bill unconstitutional, but it indicates just how bad this law really is.
Republicans are often called obstructionists and dysfunctional, for their opposition to Obamacare, and other parts of the liberal agenda. But democrats, especially Obama, are functional for passing a law without reading it, and then unconstitutionally changing it 30 times?
Monday, March 3, 2014
Possibility #2, You're All Racists
At the Academy Awards show last night, the host, Ellen Degeneres, joked that there are many possibilities for the show.
"Possibility number one, "12 Years a Slave" wins best picture. Possibility number 2, you're all racists."
Well, "12 Years a Slave" ended up winning the best picture award, so I guess Hollywood is off the racist hook.
But let's analyze this "joke". Hollywood is generally very liberal. Liberals often call any conservative opposed to the liberal agenda, especially President Obama's agenda, racist. So the questions are as follows.
Did Ellen know something about the best picture award and was she hinting to the audience?
Did Hollywood actually vote for the movie about the life of a real slave in order to avoid being tagged as racist?
If they had voted for another movie (there were nine movies nominated for that award), would they have been called racist?
What are the implications to society when your choices are limited or influenced by the prospect of being labeled racist, even when race is not actually part of the criteria for choosing?
Am I being paranoid because people who think like me are called racists so much?
"Possibility number one, "12 Years a Slave" wins best picture. Possibility number 2, you're all racists."
Well, "12 Years a Slave" ended up winning the best picture award, so I guess Hollywood is off the racist hook.
But let's analyze this "joke". Hollywood is generally very liberal. Liberals often call any conservative opposed to the liberal agenda, especially President Obama's agenda, racist. So the questions are as follows.
Did Ellen know something about the best picture award and was she hinting to the audience?
Did Hollywood actually vote for the movie about the life of a real slave in order to avoid being tagged as racist?
If they had voted for another movie (there were nine movies nominated for that award), would they have been called racist?
What are the implications to society when your choices are limited or influenced by the prospect of being labeled racist, even when race is not actually part of the criteria for choosing?
Am I being paranoid because people who think like me are called racists so much?
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Election Reforms?
People have long thought of various reforms to elections, mostly involving financial reforms. I have other ideas.
Financial
Financial reforms usually involve limiting the donations to some arbitrary maximum. I think organizations have vested interests in elections, and should be included in the process. But I do think they should only be allowed to donate the same amount per individual as I can donate myself to any campaign. An organization with 100 members can donate 100X the limit imposed on any one of them individually. However, the members being counted must be registered voters in order to be counted among those.
Voter ID
Voter fraud is real. Pretending it is not is detrimental to the process. 'One man one vote' is a principle we have had in this country from its inception, and this should be maintained. Requiring a voter to present identification is neither racist, nor disenfranchising. In this day and age when a proper ID is needed for so many daily activities, and obtaining an ID is a simple process, it is reasonable to ask voters to obtain such an ID.
Allowing early voting 30 days or more in advance of election day is even more reason for controlling the single vote per voter rule. The availability of US Mail, internet and drop in voting makes it more difficult to prevent fraud.
Media Bias
The media are supposed to be the nations watch dog. They are the people tasked with learning the truth about the government, events and people. Investigating the people running for office, asking proper questions of them, and following up on the answers, is their job. They need to do it. People are consumers of what the media publishes. Investigating the investigators is how we ensure the accuracy and efficacy of that news. Voters must relay on the information about candidates in order to make the best possible choice of placing their votes.
Regardless of your political affiliation or position on any issue before us, we must make informed decisions. Allowing the rules of elections and campaigning to influence that process poisons the process. We cannot allow politicians, who have much to gain or lose from our votes, to have undue influence in how the votes are collected and counted.
Financial
Financial reforms usually involve limiting the donations to some arbitrary maximum. I think organizations have vested interests in elections, and should be included in the process. But I do think they should only be allowed to donate the same amount per individual as I can donate myself to any campaign. An organization with 100 members can donate 100X the limit imposed on any one of them individually. However, the members being counted must be registered voters in order to be counted among those.
Voter ID
Voter fraud is real. Pretending it is not is detrimental to the process. 'One man one vote' is a principle we have had in this country from its inception, and this should be maintained. Requiring a voter to present identification is neither racist, nor disenfranchising. In this day and age when a proper ID is needed for so many daily activities, and obtaining an ID is a simple process, it is reasonable to ask voters to obtain such an ID.
Allowing early voting 30 days or more in advance of election day is even more reason for controlling the single vote per voter rule. The availability of US Mail, internet and drop in voting makes it more difficult to prevent fraud.
Media Bias
The media are supposed to be the nations watch dog. They are the people tasked with learning the truth about the government, events and people. Investigating the people running for office, asking proper questions of them, and following up on the answers, is their job. They need to do it. People are consumers of what the media publishes. Investigating the investigators is how we ensure the accuracy and efficacy of that news. Voters must relay on the information about candidates in order to make the best possible choice of placing their votes.
Regardless of your political affiliation or position on any issue before us, we must make informed decisions. Allowing the rules of elections and campaigning to influence that process poisons the process. We cannot allow politicians, who have much to gain or lose from our votes, to have undue influence in how the votes are collected and counted.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
If Obama Gets His Way, Who Will Pay?
So, President Obama is currently demanding two things of Americans. If he gets his way on both, the poor in America will suffer more than middle and upper class Americans. But don't misunderstand, we will all suffer. Here is why.
Minimum Wage:
The president is asking for a 39% increase in minimum wage, from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour. Businesses would need to either raise prices, lay people off, restrict hours worked, or some combination of these, in order to cover the increase in wages payable.
EPA 'Coal Fired Power Plants' Regulations:
Mr. Obama wants all coal fired power plants built from this day forward to include technology, which has yet to be developed, to capture and contain carbon emissions. Experts in the field say the additional regulations would raise the cost of household utilities by 70%.
Even if the technology goes undeveloped, the lack of new plants coming online will have a price raising effect as well. More regulations always raise the cost of doing business. Business costs are always passed on to someone, employees or customers.
Now the Payback:
Assuming President Obama gets both his wishes, would the increased electric bill at home cost more then the increase in wages? The president, his party, and many on the political left, claim it is unacceptable to work fro $7.25/hour while supporting a family of 4. They are correct.
But the answer is not to raise the cost of living so high as to make the increase meaningless. The answer is that jobs paying minimum wages are not intended for supporting a family. Mostly they are jobs intended for young, inexperienced, unskilled workers to get a job, develop skills and habits that will support more meaningful, higher wage jobs.
Minimum Wage:
The president is asking for a 39% increase in minimum wage, from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour. Businesses would need to either raise prices, lay people off, restrict hours worked, or some combination of these, in order to cover the increase in wages payable.
EPA 'Coal Fired Power Plants' Regulations:
Mr. Obama wants all coal fired power plants built from this day forward to include technology, which has yet to be developed, to capture and contain carbon emissions. Experts in the field say the additional regulations would raise the cost of household utilities by 70%.
Even if the technology goes undeveloped, the lack of new plants coming online will have a price raising effect as well. More regulations always raise the cost of doing business. Business costs are always passed on to someone, employees or customers.
Now the Payback:
Assuming President Obama gets both his wishes, would the increased electric bill at home cost more then the increase in wages? The president, his party, and many on the political left, claim it is unacceptable to work fro $7.25/hour while supporting a family of 4. They are correct.
But the answer is not to raise the cost of living so high as to make the increase meaningless. The answer is that jobs paying minimum wages are not intended for supporting a family. Mostly they are jobs intended for young, inexperienced, unskilled workers to get a job, develop skills and habits that will support more meaningful, higher wage jobs.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Obamacare: Arbitrarily Changing Law
Obama's Arbitrary Healthcare Flexibility
This law, the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA), was written exclusively by Democrats, voted on exclusively by Democrats, and singed into law by a Democrat. The single worst enemy to Obamacare is Obama himself, according to Major Garrett.
"To those who must live with and live under the law, the arbitrary is the norm. The only pattern is chaos. Obamacare’s worst enemy is Obama."
President Obama has issued 13 separate changes to the law in the last 12 months. Constitutional? Well, not really. But who will stop him? Republicans? No.
Each of the delays in individual pieces of the law ends shortly after an election date. The law was originally passed containing components that were not to occur until after the 2012 reelection campaign of the Campaigner in Chief. The parts of the law that most voters like, coverage for pre-existing conditions for example, were enacted immediately to gain the voters' favor. The less appreciated portions, such as taxes and mandates, were not enacted until after that election cycle. And it worked, President Obama was reelected.
Republicans have long argued this law should not be passed, then it should be repealed, and I agree with them on that. But will they stand by and allow Obama to make arbitrary changes to his signature law. Most likely, they will, for the implications that will have in the 2014 mid-term elections. Republicans are hoping to campaign on the chaos created by Obamacare to gain favor with voters in November 2014, and retake control of the Senate, while holding their huge margin in the House of Representatives.
The PPACA is, in my opinion, the single worst piece of law ever created in this country. We should repeal it, then work to implement new law that better deal with the real health care problems facing America.
Recently, House Speaker John Boehner stated he would not entertain comprehensive immigration reform legislation, because the President could not be trusted to enforce that new law, whatever form it took, based on how the PPACA has been handled by his administration. He is right about that.
President Obama cannot be trusted.
This law, the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA), was written exclusively by Democrats, voted on exclusively by Democrats, and singed into law by a Democrat. The single worst enemy to Obamacare is Obama himself, according to Major Garrett.
"To those who must live with and live under the law, the arbitrary is the norm. The only pattern is chaos. Obamacare’s worst enemy is Obama."
President Obama has issued 13 separate changes to the law in the last 12 months. Constitutional? Well, not really. But who will stop him? Republicans? No.
Each of the delays in individual pieces of the law ends shortly after an election date. The law was originally passed containing components that were not to occur until after the 2012 reelection campaign of the Campaigner in Chief. The parts of the law that most voters like, coverage for pre-existing conditions for example, were enacted immediately to gain the voters' favor. The less appreciated portions, such as taxes and mandates, were not enacted until after that election cycle. And it worked, President Obama was reelected.
Republicans have long argued this law should not be passed, then it should be repealed, and I agree with them on that. But will they stand by and allow Obama to make arbitrary changes to his signature law. Most likely, they will, for the implications that will have in the 2014 mid-term elections. Republicans are hoping to campaign on the chaos created by Obamacare to gain favor with voters in November 2014, and retake control of the Senate, while holding their huge margin in the House of Representatives.
The PPACA is, in my opinion, the single worst piece of law ever created in this country. We should repeal it, then work to implement new law that better deal with the real health care problems facing America.
Recently, House Speaker John Boehner stated he would not entertain comprehensive immigration reform legislation, because the President could not be trusted to enforce that new law, whatever form it took, based on how the PPACA has been handled by his administration. He is right about that.
President Obama cannot be trusted.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Liberal New York Taxation Confusion
NY State Website for Attracting Business
Start-Up-NY is a promotion to attract businesses to the state of New York, by offering 10 year tax exemptions. But the Mayor of the city of New York sees it differently, wanting to raise taxes on the wealthy.
CNS: Mayor DiBlasio Promises to Tackle NYCS Inequality Crisis
See a conflict here do you? In order to attract businesses to the state they must drop the taxes. But in order to fix the problems of lack of income for some people, they must raise taxes.
Conservatives have been arguing since the days of Ronald Reagan that lower taxes will improve the overall economy. Even JFK talked about this same thing during his term. Then subsequent lowered tax rates indeed boosted the economy.
Today there are many states which have taken this conservative economic education to heart, and their states are thriving. Florida is the best example of this. Florida has no income tax, no inheritance tax, no SSI tax, though it does have a sales tax and property tax.
If liberals insist on raising taxes and investing in our future, they have to prove it works, and they cannot. Conservatives can, however, prove lowering tax rates leads to increased tax revenue.
Time to get with the program.
Start-Up-NY is a promotion to attract businesses to the state of New York, by offering 10 year tax exemptions. But the Mayor of the city of New York sees it differently, wanting to raise taxes on the wealthy.
CNS: Mayor DiBlasio Promises to Tackle NYCS Inequality Crisis
See a conflict here do you? In order to attract businesses to the state they must drop the taxes. But in order to fix the problems of lack of income for some people, they must raise taxes.
Conservatives have been arguing since the days of Ronald Reagan that lower taxes will improve the overall economy. Even JFK talked about this same thing during his term. Then subsequent lowered tax rates indeed boosted the economy.
Today there are many states which have taken this conservative economic education to heart, and their states are thriving. Florida is the best example of this. Florida has no income tax, no inheritance tax, no SSI tax, though it does have a sales tax and property tax.
If liberals insist on raising taxes and investing in our future, they have to prove it works, and they cannot. Conservatives can, however, prove lowering tax rates leads to increased tax revenue.
Time to get with the program.
Monday, February 3, 2014
School Adminstrators Failing America with Snow Daze
This has been as harsh a winter in many parts of the country this year, but are we doing ourselves any favors by allowing kids to remain home when they could be going to school? I say no.
Today, for example, in northern Kentucky, there was an inch or less of snow on the ground at 6AM, and schools are closed. When I looked at the street in front of my house it was cleared of any snow. There is no reasonable person who went to school before the 1990's who thinks school should be called off today.
What logic could the decision makers have for closing school when it is such a small amount of snow and temperatures are not unbearably frigid? People with jobs are still driving past the house on their way to work.
What could we possibly be teaching our kids about life when we continually, and so easily, let them off the hook of going to school? It should not be a liability issue. If a parent would sue the school district for making them go to school in snow or cold weather, they always have the right to keep their child home, and not risk the weather outside. The parent should be responsible enough to deal with the weather by teaching the child how to dress and how to safely navigate the route to school.
If the parent is not that responsible, that is not the fault of the schools. It is time to toughen up, and stop making excuses for not doing the hard things. For allowing excuses when none should be accepted, is doing more harm than good to the future of society.
Today, for example, in northern Kentucky, there was an inch or less of snow on the ground at 6AM, and schools are closed. When I looked at the street in front of my house it was cleared of any snow. There is no reasonable person who went to school before the 1990's who thinks school should be called off today.
What logic could the decision makers have for closing school when it is such a small amount of snow and temperatures are not unbearably frigid? People with jobs are still driving past the house on their way to work.
What could we possibly be teaching our kids about life when we continually, and so easily, let them off the hook of going to school? It should not be a liability issue. If a parent would sue the school district for making them go to school in snow or cold weather, they always have the right to keep their child home, and not risk the weather outside. The parent should be responsible enough to deal with the weather by teaching the child how to dress and how to safely navigate the route to school.
If the parent is not that responsible, that is not the fault of the schools. It is time to toughen up, and stop making excuses for not doing the hard things. For allowing excuses when none should be accepted, is doing more harm than good to the future of society.
Friday, January 31, 2014
THATCHER: Common sense for restaurant-menu labeling - Washington Times
THATCHER: Common sense for restaurant-menu labeling - Washington Times
Let me get this straight. If there are more than 20 restaurants operating in a chain, there food is inherently more harmful for human consumption than if there are 19 or fewer restaurants? And this is somehow related to healthcare, or why else would it be in the PPACA under section 4205 of that piece of legislation?
"The law’s Section 4205 requires restaurants with 20 or more locations to list calorie-content information for each menu item on a board at every establishment."
I really can't imagine just how the federal government regulators and/or legislators think this should be something they are responsible for controlling.
Let me get this straight. If there are more than 20 restaurants operating in a chain, there food is inherently more harmful for human consumption than if there are 19 or fewer restaurants? And this is somehow related to healthcare, or why else would it be in the PPACA under section 4205 of that piece of legislation?
"The law’s Section 4205 requires restaurants with 20 or more locations to list calorie-content information for each menu item on a board at every establishment."
I really can't imagine just how the federal government regulators and/or legislators think this should be something they are responsible for controlling.
Monday, January 6, 2014
Obamacare Legal Challenge
Attorneys General Letter to HHS Secretary
The Obama administration has arbitrarily changed the law as passed in 2010 on numerous occasions. The attorneys general from several states are challenging those changes in a letter, to be followed by a law suit. They claim the president has no authority to change a law without going back to congress.
Imagine if the following occurred at a basketball game. Before the opening tip of the game the officials told both teams that they were not going to call fouls on the home team until the second half, but all fouls by the visitors would still be called. Or imagine the plate umpire telling coaches during ground rules that all pitches thrown by the home team pitcher through the first 4 innings would be called strikes.
That is the same as what is currently happening with changes to the law for business exemptions to mandates, congressional subsidies, and many other changes to the law made by the Obama administration.
The constitution is still the document authority for all things involving the US government, including the president. Laws are passed by congress, signed or vetoed by the president, and subsequently enforced by the executive branch. The oath of office mandates the president faithfully execute the laws, which means he has no authority to arbitrarily change law, make exemptions or exceptions, or ignore those laws.
The Obama administration has arbitrarily changed the law as passed in 2010 on numerous occasions. The attorneys general from several states are challenging those changes in a letter, to be followed by a law suit. They claim the president has no authority to change a law without going back to congress.
Imagine if the following occurred at a basketball game. Before the opening tip of the game the officials told both teams that they were not going to call fouls on the home team until the second half, but all fouls by the visitors would still be called. Or imagine the plate umpire telling coaches during ground rules that all pitches thrown by the home team pitcher through the first 4 innings would be called strikes.
That is the same as what is currently happening with changes to the law for business exemptions to mandates, congressional subsidies, and many other changes to the law made by the Obama administration.
The constitution is still the document authority for all things involving the US government, including the president. Laws are passed by congress, signed or vetoed by the president, and subsequently enforced by the executive branch. The oath of office mandates the president faithfully execute the laws, which means he has no authority to arbitrarily change law, make exemptions or exceptions, or ignore those laws.
Friday, January 3, 2014
Playoff Game Tickets
I am somewhat troubled by the complaining about greed of the NFL over playoff tickets. The NFL is a product, and they can charge whatever they want for tickets to their events. Fans have the choice of paying or not. It is not your right to be able to view the games on TV.
Many people are claiming the NFL is greedy by charging the supposedly high price for tickets. All season long those tickets were bought up, and all home games for the Bengals were sold out. No one I heard of complained then. But now!
I do find the TV black out rules illogical. If I want to watch the game on TV then many people need to buy tickets to see the game in the stadium. Or I need to buy a ticket to see the game in person so others can watch it on TV. This makes no sense to me.
But economics should prevail. There re roughly 66,000 tickets for each game at Paul Brown Stadium (PBS). If the price is too high, not all will be sold. If the price is too low, then many who want tickets won't be able to buy them before they sell out. The optimal price is one that sells exactly the number of ticket available for sale.
The point being, the price should be set where demand equals supply. If you want to see the game badly enough, go buy a ticket. Otherwise stop complaining.
Many people are claiming the NFL is greedy by charging the supposedly high price for tickets. All season long those tickets were bought up, and all home games for the Bengals were sold out. No one I heard of complained then. But now!
I do find the TV black out rules illogical. If I want to watch the game on TV then many people need to buy tickets to see the game in the stadium. Or I need to buy a ticket to see the game in person so others can watch it on TV. This makes no sense to me.
But economics should prevail. There re roughly 66,000 tickets for each game at Paul Brown Stadium (PBS). If the price is too high, not all will be sold. If the price is too low, then many who want tickets won't be able to buy them before they sell out. The optimal price is one that sells exactly the number of ticket available for sale.
The point being, the price should be set where demand equals supply. If you want to see the game badly enough, go buy a ticket. Otherwise stop complaining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)