I will say now that this is not my best work and I will accept all criticism and suggestions to fix it.
Twas the night before Christmas and all through the Senate
not a person was reading; the voting frenetic.
The roll call was done by the Dems without reason
We must pass this now 'fore the end of the season.
C-SPAN was nestled all snug in their beds,
Televise the debate the people all said.
Transparency said the Dems was what the public wanted
But behind closed doors the deals were hunted.
Amendments were passed but none allowed to be read.
If a concern was raised they would strike it instead.
And Mr. and Mrs. Public though they protested the bill,
Were told to be quite and just swallow the pill.
When out on the floor there arose such a clatter,
Senators sprang from their seats to see what was the matter.
Away to the rotunda they flew like a flash,
Through the cloak room they ran and made a mad dash.
The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow
Reminded them of Copenhagen that farcical show.
The failed trip (on global warming); to come up with a solution
When the city was gripped with snow and commotion.
Back on the floor the deals they were making.
Get this done quick before the public awakens.
We must get this done NOW we can’t waste a crisis.
Just pass it now before someone figures out the prices.
Now Landrieu! Now Nelson, Now Burris and Baucus!
Quick get what you can from the Democrat Caucus!
For you’re only a power when we really need your vote,
If the public gets angry guess who’ll be our scapegoat.
As pigs gather round when the farmer fill the trough,
So too did the Democrats and said the decision was rough.
They asked for some money or an exemption or two,
Harry Reid bought their votes changing a word or too.
And then, in a twinkling, we heard from on high
Harry Reid saying quick the time is neigh.
As we listened intently to the final vote,
We knew that bill had sounded our death note.
Obama took a moment to get out and speak
He takes any reason to give us a peak.
Of him on the camera; teleprompter near at hand
He speaks using words like I, me, and yes we can!
His eyes-how they wrinkle! His voice it was scary!
Who is this Grinch? Why it’s ol’ dingy Harry!
He drooled from his mouth as he thought of the power
But next year at election it certainly will be dour.
He kept them in session till he got what he wanted.
Of their vote in twenty ten they sure will be haunted.
They voted, made speeches: not taking questions.
It will be late into next month before they again are in sessions.
They don’t know the public, we’ll read it, dissect it.
We won’t let them forget how they screwed us to get it.
But I heard them exclaim as they drove out of sight,
We screwed them all night because we have the right!
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Health Care: Bought and paid for
“I don't know if there's a senator that doesn't have something in this bill that was important to them, and if they don't have something in it important to them, then it doesn't speak well of them,". Those are the words of Senator Harry Reid on Monday Dec, 21st. This is after Mary Landrieu’s (D-LA) vote was purchased for $300,000,000, a $100 million item for construction of a university hospital was inserted in the Senate health care bill at the request of Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) to purchase his vote, and Ben Nelson’s vote was purchased in return for the federal government permanently funding Nebraska’s bill for Medicaid, the insurance plan for the poor, worth about $45m in its first 10 years. "The State of Nebraska cannot afford an unfunded mandate and uncontrolled spending of this magnitude,” Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman wrote to Nelson ; every other state can handle it?. Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont and the most liberal of senators, obtained $10bn for community health centers after failing to get a government-backed public health insurance scheme in the bill in return for his vote. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) carved out an exemption for non-profit insurers in their states from a hefty excise tax. Similar insurers in the other 48 states will pay the tax. Three states – Pennsylvania, New York and Florida – all won protections for their Medicare Advantage beneficiaries at a time when the program is facing cuts nationwide.
I am not a Constitutional scholar but I have read it; something our representatives should do. I can’t find anywhere where the Congress has the right to subject the citizens of one state to pay for Medicaid while releasing the citizens of another state from the same regulation. I guess the people of Ohio are doing much better than the people of Nebraska since their unemployment rate is only 4.5 percent (second lowest in the nation) and ours is 10.6. (40th lowest)
I have to give Harry Reid credit. He knows his history. (quoting segregationist Jamie Whitten) 'The only way the Senate can work is by unanimous consent or exhaustion.' And he is exhausting them into passing the bill. I quoted Mr. Whitten because in essence we will become slaves to the health care system. It will eventually take over a large portion of our everyday lives. So we know this bill that even Democrats like Howard Dean and many “Blue Dog Democrats” don’t like is going to pass so they can go home and say they did something “historic” –hint, historic does not necessarily translate to good. Just look at our current commander in chief.
I am a bit confused because I couldn’t find the debates on C-SPAN as promised. I couldn’t find the bi-partisanship promised. I couldn’t find a copy of the bill that was being voted on on-line that was promised. More importantly, the members of the Senate can’t find a complete copy of the bill that is being voted on; or anyone who has read the complete copy of the bill. I couldn’t find anywhere in the Constitution where what is being done is even legal.
All this voting to pass what many consider a bad bill. But that doesn’t matter. Once enacted this will become the third rail of politics and will be funded no matter what; to the downfall of the nation. If Medicare and Medicaid are not solvent, what makes anyone think that this one will? We will pay taxes for this for 3 years before we get anything out of it and once we do start getting the “benefits” it will quickly run out of money and will be funded with further tax increases. Anyone who doesn’t believe this, I have a proposition. If by 2016, your health care is at least equal to what you have now and your taxes do not go up to pay for it, I will pay you $1,000 ( a gentlemen’s bet). If, however, your health care options have decreased or you are unable to get at least the same care you get now or your taxes (actual or added to other items for the purpose of paying for this program) have gone up, you pay the difference I have paid up to that point. I expect many calls.
I am not a Constitutional scholar but I have read it; something our representatives should do. I can’t find anywhere where the Congress has the right to subject the citizens of one state to pay for Medicaid while releasing the citizens of another state from the same regulation. I guess the people of Ohio are doing much better than the people of Nebraska since their unemployment rate is only 4.5 percent (second lowest in the nation) and ours is 10.6. (40th lowest)
I have to give Harry Reid credit. He knows his history. (quoting segregationist Jamie Whitten) 'The only way the Senate can work is by unanimous consent or exhaustion.' And he is exhausting them into passing the bill. I quoted Mr. Whitten because in essence we will become slaves to the health care system. It will eventually take over a large portion of our everyday lives. So we know this bill that even Democrats like Howard Dean and many “Blue Dog Democrats” don’t like is going to pass so they can go home and say they did something “historic” –hint, historic does not necessarily translate to good. Just look at our current commander in chief.
I am a bit confused because I couldn’t find the debates on C-SPAN as promised. I couldn’t find the bi-partisanship promised. I couldn’t find a copy of the bill that was being voted on on-line that was promised. More importantly, the members of the Senate can’t find a complete copy of the bill that is being voted on; or anyone who has read the complete copy of the bill. I couldn’t find anywhere in the Constitution where what is being done is even legal.
All this voting to pass what many consider a bad bill. But that doesn’t matter. Once enacted this will become the third rail of politics and will be funded no matter what; to the downfall of the nation. If Medicare and Medicaid are not solvent, what makes anyone think that this one will? We will pay taxes for this for 3 years before we get anything out of it and once we do start getting the “benefits” it will quickly run out of money and will be funded with further tax increases. Anyone who doesn’t believe this, I have a proposition. If by 2016, your health care is at least equal to what you have now and your taxes do not go up to pay for it, I will pay you $1,000 ( a gentlemen’s bet). If, however, your health care options have decreased or you are unable to get at least the same care you get now or your taxes (actual or added to other items for the purpose of paying for this program) have gone up, you pay the difference I have paid up to that point. I expect many calls.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Can we afford health care?
Our elected leaders are about to vote on a bill that will affect 1/6 of our economy. Indeed, President Obama has stated that if Congress does not pass health care legislation that will bring down costs, the federal government “will go bankrupt.” If we don't pass it, here's the guarantee….your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you,” he said. “Potentially they're going to drop your coverage, because they just can't afford an increase of 25 percent, 30 percent in terms of the costs of providing health care to employees each and every year. “
The president said that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are on an “unsustainable” trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, “the federal government will go bankrupt.”
“This actually provides us the best chance of starting to bend the cost curve on the government expenditures in Medicare and Medicaid,” Obama said. “Because if we don't do this, nobody argues with the fact that health care costs are going to consume the entire federal budget,” the president said.
Of course, we all know the best way out of bankruptcy is to spend more! Haven’t we been told that? Despite Republican criticism concerning record federal deficits, President Obama (December 8th, 2009) said the U.S. has had to "spend our way out of this recession"
If this sounds familiar, think back to late January of this year and the first stimulus. We were told then, that if we do nothing, unemployment would go up to 8.5% in the short term (2009) and continue rising to a peak of about 9% in 2010. With stimulus, unemployment would peak at just under 8% in 2009.
Who was it that told House Republican leaders to "stop trying to frighten the American people". Normally someone saying “the federal government will go bankrupt” would scare me. Then I realize it is Barack Obama and I know that he doesn’t really have a clue. Remember, the Obama administration misread the economy not once or twice, but THREE times. This is the President who insisted we spend on the “shovel –ready” projects (projects that are able to start construction within 90 days of selection are eligible for funding from the $90 billion set aside for infrastructure.). Then-president-elect Obama used the term on a December 7th visit to NBC’s Meet the Press, describing the kinds of projects that would be supported by the upcoming economic stimulus bill.
What is left in the health care bill anyway? Mr. Obama’s key components were:
* Establishing a new public program that would look a lot like Medicare for those under age-65 that would be available to those who do not have access to an employer plan or qualify for existing government programs like Medicaid or SCHIP. This would also be open to small employers who do not offer a private plan. - GONE
* Creating a “National Health Insurance Exchange.” This would be a government-run marketing organization that would sell insurance plans directly to those who did not have an employer plan or public coverage. - GONE
* An employer “pay or play” provision that would require an employer to either provide health insurance or contribute toward the cost of a public plan. – GONE with the public plan.
* Mandating that families cover all children through either a private or public health insurance plan. – STILL THERE. In fact, the average family will see an increase in premiums. Can spend up to 8% of gross on health care.
* Expanding eligibility for government programs, like Medicaid and SCHIP. – GONE
* Allow flexibility in embracing state health reform initiatives. – NOT ADDRESSED
* Quality- Obama’s quality initiatives look a lot like Clinton and McCain’s as well as those things that are going on in the market anyway. All good points—but no advantage here or expectation there will be quick savings.
* Affordability – Like Clinton, affordability is more about shifting the cost of insurance to the government then it is making a more efficient U.S. health care system. Health insurance is more affordable for people because he spends many billions of dollars subsidizing access for everyone.
* Portable Health Coverage For All: While Obama does not have an individual mandate to purchase health insurance (IT IS IN THER NOW); it is likely that he would cover as many people as would Clinton because he argues he makes coverage affordable for about as many as Clinton claims to. Compared to McCain, he puts far more emphasis on getting people covered upfront.
According to Mitch McConnel’s (R-KY) website the only way to really know what is in the bill is to be part of the Majority Leaders conference.
To tell you how bad it is, even Dr. Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and former governor of Vermont would vote NO.
Quick recap: Must pass stimulus or economy will continue to tank and unemployment will be above 8.5%. Misread economy three times. Now we must pass a flawed health care plan that no one has read and the majority of voters don’t want or else.
The president said that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are on an “unsustainable” trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, “the federal government will go bankrupt.”
“This actually provides us the best chance of starting to bend the cost curve on the government expenditures in Medicare and Medicaid,” Obama said. “Because if we don't do this, nobody argues with the fact that health care costs are going to consume the entire federal budget,” the president said.
Of course, we all know the best way out of bankruptcy is to spend more! Haven’t we been told that? Despite Republican criticism concerning record federal deficits, President Obama (December 8th, 2009) said the U.S. has had to "spend our way out of this recession"
If this sounds familiar, think back to late January of this year and the first stimulus. We were told then, that if we do nothing, unemployment would go up to 8.5% in the short term (2009) and continue rising to a peak of about 9% in 2010. With stimulus, unemployment would peak at just under 8% in 2009.
Who was it that told House Republican leaders to "stop trying to frighten the American people". Normally someone saying “the federal government will go bankrupt” would scare me. Then I realize it is Barack Obama and I know that he doesn’t really have a clue. Remember, the Obama administration misread the economy not once or twice, but THREE times. This is the President who insisted we spend on the “shovel –ready” projects (projects that are able to start construction within 90 days of selection are eligible for funding from the $90 billion set aside for infrastructure.). Then-president-elect Obama used the term on a December 7th visit to NBC’s Meet the Press, describing the kinds of projects that would be supported by the upcoming economic stimulus bill.
What is left in the health care bill anyway? Mr. Obama’s key components were:
* Establishing a new public program that would look a lot like Medicare for those under age-65 that would be available to those who do not have access to an employer plan or qualify for existing government programs like Medicaid or SCHIP. This would also be open to small employers who do not offer a private plan. - GONE
* Creating a “National Health Insurance Exchange.” This would be a government-run marketing organization that would sell insurance plans directly to those who did not have an employer plan or public coverage. - GONE
* An employer “pay or play” provision that would require an employer to either provide health insurance or contribute toward the cost of a public plan. – GONE with the public plan.
* Mandating that families cover all children through either a private or public health insurance plan. – STILL THERE. In fact, the average family will see an increase in premiums. Can spend up to 8% of gross on health care.
* Expanding eligibility for government programs, like Medicaid and SCHIP. – GONE
* Allow flexibility in embracing state health reform initiatives. – NOT ADDRESSED
* Quality- Obama’s quality initiatives look a lot like Clinton and McCain’s as well as those things that are going on in the market anyway. All good points—but no advantage here or expectation there will be quick savings.
* Affordability – Like Clinton, affordability is more about shifting the cost of insurance to the government then it is making a more efficient U.S. health care system. Health insurance is more affordable for people because he spends many billions of dollars subsidizing access for everyone.
* Portable Health Coverage For All: While Obama does not have an individual mandate to purchase health insurance (IT IS IN THER NOW); it is likely that he would cover as many people as would Clinton because he argues he makes coverage affordable for about as many as Clinton claims to. Compared to McCain, he puts far more emphasis on getting people covered upfront.
According to Mitch McConnel’s (R-KY) website the only way to really know what is in the bill is to be part of the Majority Leaders conference.
To tell you how bad it is, even Dr. Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and former governor of Vermont would vote NO.
Quick recap: Must pass stimulus or economy will continue to tank and unemployment will be above 8.5%. Misread economy three times. Now we must pass a flawed health care plan that no one has read and the majority of voters don’t want or else.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
When faced with undeniable evidence how do you react?
If you are the United Nations Secretary General you deny the evidence!
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on 12/8/2009 that emails leaked from a British university have done nothing to undermine the United Nations' view that climate change is accelerating due to humans.
"Nothing that has come out in the public as a result of the recent email hackings has cast doubt on the basic scientific message on climate change and that message is quite clear -- that climate change is happening much, much faster than we realized and we human beings are the primary cause,"
In other words, though the data is suspect because last weekend, having claimed to have collected the most complete data on the Earth's temperature for the last half century, the CRU -- in the middle of the "Let's Cook the Books!" e-mail scandal -- said that all its data on the Earth's temperature since 1960 had been irretrievably "lost." Never mind the scientists who have pushed Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) resorted to using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in the Earth’s temperature since 1960. Or, as still another describes their manipulation of the data thus: "[W]e can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!" This is no reason to cast doubt on the basic scientific message on climate change.
The leaked e-mail exchanges also show the vaunted "scientists" engaging in a possibly criminal effort to delete their own smoking-gun e-mails in response to a Freedom of Information request. But this is no reason to believe that climate change is not a result of human beings.
The CRU, regularly cited as the leading authority on "global climate analysis" received more than $23 million in taxpayer funds for its work on global warming. The CRU's summary of that data was used by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its 2007 report demanding that we adopt a few modest lifestyle changes, such as abolishing modern technology, reverting to hunter/gatherer status and taxing ourselves into servitude. Can you think of any reason that the CRU would want to further their scientific study on “global climate analysis”? Maybe 23 million reasons?
Hey, Han Ki-moon, I have perfected a perpetual motion machine that also creates cold fusion. I need more money to fund my research. Oh, I accidentally destroyed the data and the working copy so I can’t prove it but take my word for it; I wouldn’t lie to you!
I just don’t know why no one believes me!
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on 12/8/2009 that emails leaked from a British university have done nothing to undermine the United Nations' view that climate change is accelerating due to humans.
"Nothing that has come out in the public as a result of the recent email hackings has cast doubt on the basic scientific message on climate change and that message is quite clear -- that climate change is happening much, much faster than we realized and we human beings are the primary cause,"
In other words, though the data is suspect because last weekend, having claimed to have collected the most complete data on the Earth's temperature for the last half century, the CRU -- in the middle of the "Let's Cook the Books!" e-mail scandal -- said that all its data on the Earth's temperature since 1960 had been irretrievably "lost." Never mind the scientists who have pushed Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) resorted to using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in the Earth’s temperature since 1960. Or, as still another describes their manipulation of the data thus: "[W]e can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!" This is no reason to cast doubt on the basic scientific message on climate change.
The leaked e-mail exchanges also show the vaunted "scientists" engaging in a possibly criminal effort to delete their own smoking-gun e-mails in response to a Freedom of Information request. But this is no reason to believe that climate change is not a result of human beings.
The CRU, regularly cited as the leading authority on "global climate analysis" received more than $23 million in taxpayer funds for its work on global warming. The CRU's summary of that data was used by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its 2007 report demanding that we adopt a few modest lifestyle changes, such as abolishing modern technology, reverting to hunter/gatherer status and taxing ourselves into servitude. Can you think of any reason that the CRU would want to further their scientific study on “global climate analysis”? Maybe 23 million reasons?
Hey, Han Ki-moon, I have perfected a perpetual motion machine that also creates cold fusion. I need more money to fund my research. Oh, I accidentally destroyed the data and the working copy so I can’t prove it but take my word for it; I wouldn’t lie to you!
I just don’t know why no one believes me!
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Transparency. The new meaning of "is" is...
Transparency as defined by Encarta Dictionary is: the quality or state of being transparent. Transparent is: clearly recognizable as what he, she, or it really is; completely open and frank. The thesaurus meanings are clear, obvious, apparent, evident, and understandable. Based on these, I must ask, has President Barack Obama lived up to his campaign promise?
On the campaign trail in 2008, Candidate Obama stated; To achieve health care reform, "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."
Stating that transparency and rule of law will be the touchstone of his administration, US President Barack Hussein Obama, on his first day in office, issued a series of executive orders to this effect.
For the life of me, I can’t find where C-SPAN has been showing the negotiations going on behind closed, and sometimes locked, doors in the capital concerning health care reform. In fact, there are reports that meetings are being held that don’t include both parties. When a Republican is invited, it is someone like Olympia Snowe who is a Democrat with a R, as in RINO, behind her name.
Candidate Obama promised that he would work with both sides of the aisle but it appears he was less than transparent on that also.
On the campaign trail in 2008, Candidate Obama stated; To achieve health care reform, "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."
Stating that transparency and rule of law will be the touchstone of his administration, US President Barack Hussein Obama, on his first day in office, issued a series of executive orders to this effect.
For the life of me, I can’t find where C-SPAN has been showing the negotiations going on behind closed, and sometimes locked, doors in the capital concerning health care reform. In fact, there are reports that meetings are being held that don’t include both parties. When a Republican is invited, it is someone like Olympia Snowe who is a Democrat with a R, as in RINO, behind her name.
Candidate Obama promised that he would work with both sides of the aisle but it appears he was less than transparent on that also.
How do you define class?
On the morning of November 5th, Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire, killed12 soldiers, and wounded another 31. The President of the United States responded in a clear about face to the way he responded when a black man was arrested by a white officer in Massachusetts. If you remember, he stated in a news conference, "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played, but I think it's fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, No. 3 ... that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."
Understand that he stated clearly that: 1. He wasn’t there. 2. He didn’t have all the facts. 3. Mr. Gates jimmied his way into the house. 4. A report of a break in was reported. 4. He didn’t know what role race played. (Clearly race did play a role as Mr. Gates played the victim card early on. When Crowley told Gates that he was investigating a possible break-in, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed, "Why, because I'm a black man in America?" –No Mr. Gates, because you are present in a home where a break in has been reported.) 5. Cambridge police acted stupidly. 6. African-Americans (More on that term later) and Latinos are victims.
When confronted with a terrorist act on American soil by a man known to federal law enforcement officials because of internet postings that discussed suicide bombing and other threats, speaking in Washington, President Barack Obama called the shootings a “horrific outburst.” “It’s difficult enough when we lose these great Americans in battles overseas,” Obama said at the Interior Department. “It’s horrifying that they should come under fire at an Army base on American soil.” "We don't know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts," Mr. Obama said in a Rose Garden statement.
So here we have the President saying: 1. This is horrific. 2. It is difficult to lose troops – especially on American soil. 3. He doesn’t have all the facts –again. 4. But this time in stark contrast, he tells us not to jump to conclusions about this self proclaimed Muslim.
The only thing I am leaving out is a few “shout out’s” to people before telling the nation of this “horrific outburst”. After news broke out of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas, the nation watched in horror as the toll of dead and injured climbed. The White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president. The situation called for not only his trademark eloquence, but also grace and perspective.
But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a "shout-out" to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner." Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. THREE MINUTES! Wouldn’t it have been appropriate for the President to skip the first part and go directly into the
But that is not the end of the story.
No, what comes next is more telling of our Commander in Chiefs respect for the military. The shooting occurred on a Thursday and it wasn’t till late afternoon early evening that the base was actually secure.
You would expect the President to visit sometime Friday or Saturday; reassure the troops, visit the wounded, in general act like a Commander in Chief. One Commander in Chief did former President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, made a private visit to the Darnall Army Medical Center to visit with the wounded soldiers and their families. He didn’t call the press to let them know he would be there. He didn’t pose for reporters or tell them how great he was visiting the wounded. He didn’t use the soldiers as a photo op. No, they went there in private and only a few pictures have come out; from family members of those he wished a speedy recovery.
By contrast, President Obama, kept his regular schedule on Friday and on Saturday addressed the House Democratic Caucus (part of his transparency and getting both sides together), made a statement to the press on health care and then departed with the first lady to Camp David. No visit to the troops. It took the CIC 6 days, and a federal holiday, to make his way down to Texas. Eulogizing after mass tragedies is a somber duty of the modern presidency, and this was Obama's first such effort. He was resolute and somber; he did not well up, and his voice did not crack. He trod carefully about the motives of Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, alluding to his Muslim faith without directly mentioning or blaming it. Another Jihad, another Muslim extremist, another attack on American soil. Granted, this one is not anywhere near as dramatic as 9-11. But it is an attack nevertheless. To date the liberal press and President Obama still refuse to call this situation for what it really is: an extremist Muslim attack upon American soil. Period.
Now I ask, which of the two individuals Former President Bush or current President Obama showed more class? If the attack had happened at a union hall or ACORN office do you think Obama would have been there? Don’t answer; if you read my blogs, I believe I know your answer.
Understand that he stated clearly that: 1. He wasn’t there. 2. He didn’t have all the facts. 3. Mr. Gates jimmied his way into the house. 4. A report of a break in was reported. 4. He didn’t know what role race played. (Clearly race did play a role as Mr. Gates played the victim card early on. When Crowley told Gates that he was investigating a possible break-in, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed, "Why, because I'm a black man in America?" –No Mr. Gates, because you are present in a home where a break in has been reported.) 5. Cambridge police acted stupidly. 6. African-Americans (More on that term later) and Latinos are victims.
When confronted with a terrorist act on American soil by a man known to federal law enforcement officials because of internet postings that discussed suicide bombing and other threats, speaking in Washington, President Barack Obama called the shootings a “horrific outburst.” “It’s difficult enough when we lose these great Americans in battles overseas,” Obama said at the Interior Department. “It’s horrifying that they should come under fire at an Army base on American soil.” "We don't know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts," Mr. Obama said in a Rose Garden statement.
So here we have the President saying: 1. This is horrific. 2. It is difficult to lose troops – especially on American soil. 3. He doesn’t have all the facts –again. 4. But this time in stark contrast, he tells us not to jump to conclusions about this self proclaimed Muslim.
The only thing I am leaving out is a few “shout out’s” to people before telling the nation of this “horrific outburst”. After news broke out of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas, the nation watched in horror as the toll of dead and injured climbed. The White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president. The situation called for not only his trademark eloquence, but also grace and perspective.
But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a "shout-out" to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner." Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. THREE MINUTES! Wouldn’t it have been appropriate for the President to skip the first part and go directly into the
But that is not the end of the story.
No, what comes next is more telling of our Commander in Chiefs respect for the military. The shooting occurred on a Thursday and it wasn’t till late afternoon early evening that the base was actually secure.
You would expect the President to visit sometime Friday or Saturday; reassure the troops, visit the wounded, in general act like a Commander in Chief. One Commander in Chief did former President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, made a private visit to the Darnall Army Medical Center to visit with the wounded soldiers and their families. He didn’t call the press to let them know he would be there. He didn’t pose for reporters or tell them how great he was visiting the wounded. He didn’t use the soldiers as a photo op. No, they went there in private and only a few pictures have come out; from family members of those he wished a speedy recovery.
By contrast, President Obama, kept his regular schedule on Friday and on Saturday addressed the House Democratic Caucus (part of his transparency and getting both sides together), made a statement to the press on health care and then departed with the first lady to Camp David. No visit to the troops. It took the CIC 6 days, and a federal holiday, to make his way down to Texas. Eulogizing after mass tragedies is a somber duty of the modern presidency, and this was Obama's first such effort. He was resolute and somber; he did not well up, and his voice did not crack. He trod carefully about the motives of Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, alluding to his Muslim faith without directly mentioning or blaming it. Another Jihad, another Muslim extremist, another attack on American soil. Granted, this one is not anywhere near as dramatic as 9-11. But it is an attack nevertheless. To date the liberal press and President Obama still refuse to call this situation for what it really is: an extremist Muslim attack upon American soil. Period.
Now I ask, which of the two individuals Former President Bush or current President Obama showed more class? If the attack had happened at a union hall or ACORN office do you think Obama would have been there? Don’t answer; if you read my blogs, I believe I know your answer.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Ah, Denmark in the winter.
How best do you show that you are serious about limiting the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere? Easy, have a get together in a country that requires the attendees from 192 countries to spew out CO2 at a massive rate. According to the organizers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tons of "carbon dioxide equivalent"; the amount of carbon dioxide produced by more than 60 of the world's smaller countries in an entire year -- combined.
The number of limousines for the Copenhagen summit is already over 1,200. There aren’t enough limos in the country to fill the demand so they are being driven from Germany and Sweden. These are people worried about the planet so of course, they are also driving electric or hybrids. So far five of these cars are among the 1,200. Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company stated, "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish." 5 out of 1,200 is roughly 0.4%; surprisingly that is also the effect that man has as a whole on the global CO2 levels (when not attending a conference to reduce said levels – irony at its best). You would think they would at least carpool to the conference.
The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.
Over 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders as well as celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles will be attending and eating a menu of scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges (no doubt from sustainable sources). No doubt some of the concerned will dine on the cheap. One restaurants signature dessert is a vanilla panna cotta topped with a razor-thin leaf of 24-carat gold. Another treat is a rich chocolate-whipped ganache and a fingernail-sized, tasty almond cake.
At least the sex will be C02-neutral. The prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – yes, they have unions there – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.
Many of the participants do not really need to be there. And, far from "saving the world," the world's leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent. Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two per cent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.
No doubt these “green” elite, who are adamant we be taxed and regulated into compliance with their environmental principles, are happily violating those principles in their private jets, chauffeured vehicles and luxury accommodations. Like Orwell pointed out, “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”.
P.T. Barnum and Chicken Little didn’t have anything on these people.
UPDATE: Al Gore was planning on giving out handshakes for $1,209 in Copenhagen. The former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner had been scheduled to speak to more than 3,000 people at a Dec. 16 event hosted by the Berlingske Tidende newspaper group.
As described in The Washington Times' Inside the Beltway column Tuesday, the multimedia public event to promote Mr. Gore's new book, "Our Choice," included $1,209 VIP tickets that granted the holder a photo opportunity with Mr. Gore and a "light snack."
Just days before the summit, and inconveniently after the data supporting global warming turned out to be false, the group says Gore canceled the lecture Thursday, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule. He probably realized that he would be asked questions and found something more important to do than be at the summit for which he has been the poster child.
Keep up the good work Al!
UPDATE NUMBER 2: turns out my numbers were in error. Apparently, the carbon footprint will actually by upwards of 46,200 tonnes (again most of it from private flights to and from). To put it in perspective, it is the amount produced by 2,300 Americans (or 660,000 Ethiopians) each year (using 2006 stats). The final stats won't be calculated till after the conference. Emissions broke down as follows: 23% accommodation, transportation 7% and activities inside the conference center 70%.
Temporary offices, not well insulated and warmed by oil (that dreaded oil)heaters were the most wasteful. Some of the power was generated from wind power but the vast majority of the energy used by the conference was from, are you ready for this, COAL FIRED POWER STATIONS!! Way to show us how to be green!
The number of limousines for the Copenhagen summit is already over 1,200. There aren’t enough limos in the country to fill the demand so they are being driven from Germany and Sweden. These are people worried about the planet so of course, they are also driving electric or hybrids. So far five of these cars are among the 1,200. Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company stated, "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish." 5 out of 1,200 is roughly 0.4%; surprisingly that is also the effect that man has as a whole on the global CO2 levels (when not attending a conference to reduce said levels – irony at its best). You would think they would at least carpool to the conference.
The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.
Over 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders as well as celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles will be attending and eating a menu of scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges (no doubt from sustainable sources). No doubt some of the concerned will dine on the cheap. One restaurants signature dessert is a vanilla panna cotta topped with a razor-thin leaf of 24-carat gold. Another treat is a rich chocolate-whipped ganache and a fingernail-sized, tasty almond cake.
At least the sex will be C02-neutral. The prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – yes, they have unions there – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.
Many of the participants do not really need to be there. And, far from "saving the world," the world's leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent. Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two per cent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.
No doubt these “green” elite, who are adamant we be taxed and regulated into compliance with their environmental principles, are happily violating those principles in their private jets, chauffeured vehicles and luxury accommodations. Like Orwell pointed out, “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”.
P.T. Barnum and Chicken Little didn’t have anything on these people.
UPDATE: Al Gore was planning on giving out handshakes for $1,209 in Copenhagen. The former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner had been scheduled to speak to more than 3,000 people at a Dec. 16 event hosted by the Berlingske Tidende newspaper group.
As described in The Washington Times' Inside the Beltway column Tuesday, the multimedia public event to promote Mr. Gore's new book, "Our Choice," included $1,209 VIP tickets that granted the holder a photo opportunity with Mr. Gore and a "light snack."
Just days before the summit, and inconveniently after the data supporting global warming turned out to be false, the group says Gore canceled the lecture Thursday, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule. He probably realized that he would be asked questions and found something more important to do than be at the summit for which he has been the poster child.
Keep up the good work Al!
UPDATE NUMBER 2: turns out my numbers were in error. Apparently, the carbon footprint will actually by upwards of 46,200 tonnes (again most of it from private flights to and from). To put it in perspective, it is the amount produced by 2,300 Americans (or 660,000 Ethiopians) each year (using 2006 stats). The final stats won't be calculated till after the conference. Emissions broke down as follows: 23% accommodation, transportation 7% and activities inside the conference center 70%.
Temporary offices, not well insulated and warmed by oil (that dreaded oil)heaters were the most wasteful. Some of the power was generated from wind power but the vast majority of the energy used by the conference was from, are you ready for this, COAL FIRED POWER STATIONS!! Way to show us how to be green!
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Much ado about nothing
President Obama made yet another prime time speech last night. He pre-empted the traditional showing of “A Charlie Brown Christmas” and managed to get the same time slot as Bill O’Reilly which meant that Fox would put the President on and he could be assured of one person not reporting on his failure of the day. He picked a great backdrop; more troops behind him as a photo op. They were even instructed to “act enthusiastic”. Can’t ask for more than that could he.
I guess it was fitting for him to preempt Charlie Brown because it contained the famous soliloquy by Linus Van Pelt:
Charlie Brown: Isn't there anyone who knows what Christmas is all about?
Linus Van Pelt: Sure, Charlie Brown, I can tell you what Christmas is all about.
[moves toward the center of the stage]
Linus Van Pelt: Lights, please.
[a spotlight shines on Linus]
Linus Van Pelt: "And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were so afraid. And the angel said unto them, 'Fear not: for behold, I bring unto you glad tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the City of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.' And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.'"
[Linus picks up his blanket and walks back towards Charlie Brown]
Linus Van Pelt: That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.
We all know that Barack “the chosen one” Obama doesn’t see himself as Christ like
But, isn’t it telling that he did preempt Charlie Brown to tell us of his long awaited plans (see full text here) on how to handle Afghanistan? After all, Charlie Brown has a message of hope; just not rooted in Mr. Obama.
His speech has been dissected many times by both sides of the aisle and even overseas papers. Just like climate change, the debate is over. It has been universally accepted that as usual he said a lot, but it didn’t have any substance. What it did say was confusing in that he stated, “the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion.”. “As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service.” On June 4th, 1940, Winston Churchill stated, "...We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender..." On December 1st, 2009 Barack Obama stated, “And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.” So he is stating that he will successfully conclude the “war of necessity” in 18 months? How nice that he can see into his crystal ball and see that. And to think, it only took him 100 days since the request from General McChrystal. He has essentially put boundaries on our (and I mean Americas) success.
If you look back to March 26th, 2009 President Obama vowed to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” the terrorist al-Qaida network in Afghanistan and Pakistan and ordered another 4000 troops to deploy. Last night, he reiterated this, “Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.” At the same time, he never said the word “win”.
“So no — I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror.” “The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010”. He is convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan and wants to send a surge of troops in and start bringing them home just before the election cycle picks up again. Interestingly he said the word I 63 times in his speech
“Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people”. He didn’t think our security was at stake in Iraq and subsequently was against the surge; even refusing to call it a surge or admit that it worked after it clearly had and is taking credit for its success. Confusing.
I am sorry, I just don't believe that this man, who has no military background, hell, he wasn't even a boy scout, has more knowledge of how to win a war than his battle hardened Generals. When someone asks for 40,000 troops, his answer should have been will 60,000 make it go quicker? Not I'll give you less than what you want and put a time line on it also.
I guess it was fitting for him to preempt Charlie Brown because it contained the famous soliloquy by Linus Van Pelt:
Charlie Brown: Isn't there anyone who knows what Christmas is all about?
Linus Van Pelt: Sure, Charlie Brown, I can tell you what Christmas is all about.
[moves toward the center of the stage]
Linus Van Pelt: Lights, please.
[a spotlight shines on Linus]
Linus Van Pelt: "And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were so afraid. And the angel said unto them, 'Fear not: for behold, I bring unto you glad tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the City of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.' And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.'"
[Linus picks up his blanket and walks back towards Charlie Brown]
Linus Van Pelt: That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.
We all know that Barack “the chosen one” Obama doesn’t see himself as Christ like
But, isn’t it telling that he did preempt Charlie Brown to tell us of his long awaited plans (see full text here) on how to handle Afghanistan? After all, Charlie Brown has a message of hope; just not rooted in Mr. Obama.
His speech has been dissected many times by both sides of the aisle and even overseas papers. Just like climate change, the debate is over. It has been universally accepted that as usual he said a lot, but it didn’t have any substance. What it did say was confusing in that he stated, “the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion.”. “As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service.” On June 4th, 1940, Winston Churchill stated, "...We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender..." On December 1st, 2009 Barack Obama stated, “And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.” So he is stating that he will successfully conclude the “war of necessity” in 18 months? How nice that he can see into his crystal ball and see that. And to think, it only took him 100 days since the request from General McChrystal. He has essentially put boundaries on our (and I mean Americas) success.
If you look back to March 26th, 2009 President Obama vowed to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” the terrorist al-Qaida network in Afghanistan and Pakistan and ordered another 4000 troops to deploy. Last night, he reiterated this, “Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.” At the same time, he never said the word “win”.
“So no — I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror.” “The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010”. He is convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan and wants to send a surge of troops in and start bringing them home just before the election cycle picks up again. Interestingly he said the word I 63 times in his speech
“Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people”. He didn’t think our security was at stake in Iraq and subsequently was against the surge; even refusing to call it a surge or admit that it worked after it clearly had and is taking credit for its success. Confusing.
I am sorry, I just don't believe that this man, who has no military background, hell, he wasn't even a boy scout, has more knowledge of how to win a war than his battle hardened Generals. When someone asks for 40,000 troops, his answer should have been will 60,000 make it go quicker? Not I'll give you less than what you want and put a time line on it also.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Why can't my Senator learn to take a bribe?
I don’t know about anyone else, but I am mad. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) got $300,000,000 for her vote on health care and my Senator, Sherrod Brown (D-OH), gave his away for free. She was happy to get $100,000,000 and then got 3 times what was promised. What is wrong with our Senator that he couldn’t live up to the political tradition of selling his vote like she did?
A bribe is defined as: persuade somebody with enticement (to give somebody money or some other incentive to do something, especially something illegal or dishonest). Technically you can’t call it a bribe because he didn’t actually say ‘hey Mary, here is $300,000,000 if you vote for this’. Instead, our honorable representatives (sarcasm) placed an amendment on page 432 of the Senate Health Care bill that contains the nugget "certain states recovering from a major disaster." In order to qualify for this the state must have been declared a disaster area in the past 7 fiscal years. While Louisiana is not the only state that has had that declaration; notice the wording "certain states". At least we can say the Senate believes in transparency. The bribes are right there in the open for everyone to see. If this had been anyone else but a Senator, there would be criminal investigations.
Common Sherrod, what is wrong with you that you can’t seem to take $300,000,000 of taxpayer money and get it for Ohio?
A bribe is defined as: persuade somebody with enticement (to give somebody money or some other incentive to do something, especially something illegal or dishonest). Technically you can’t call it a bribe because he didn’t actually say ‘hey Mary, here is $300,000,000 if you vote for this’. Instead, our honorable representatives (sarcasm) placed an amendment on page 432 of the Senate Health Care bill that contains the nugget "certain states recovering from a major disaster." In order to qualify for this the state must have been declared a disaster area in the past 7 fiscal years. While Louisiana is not the only state that has had that declaration; notice the wording "certain states". At least we can say the Senate believes in transparency. The bribes are right there in the open for everyone to see. If this had been anyone else but a Senator, there would be criminal investigations.
Common Sherrod, what is wrong with you that you can’t seem to take $300,000,000 of taxpayer money and get it for Ohio?
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Where has all the money gone?
I for one am glad to see the stimulus working. I think. I am not sure if I understand how to read the data. But, my government tells me it is working so it must be. My government would never lie to me. Though, as Ronald Reagan used to say, “Trust but verify”. With that in mind, I went to recovery.gov to find out how well the stimulus is working. The first part that confused me was a job saved. How do you measure a job saved? Is it one where the boss comes up and says to the employee, ‘good thing we got some stimulus money or you would be gone.’? If the money dries up, which eventually it must or the job is inherently a government job, does the person then get let go?
Quick question; how many congressional districts are in Arizona? Answer; 8. So how did 30 jobs get saved or created with S761,420 in federal stimulus spending in the 15th district? $34 million in stimulus money has been spent in Arizona's 86th congressional district in a project for the Navajo Housing authority. The Navajo Housing authority is actually located in the 1st congressional district but what about the other money?
Okay, a minor mistake. We found the 34 million and $761,420 isn’t much. We should expect some minor mistakes; after all we are talking billions of dollars being doled out.
But there are other mistakes:
*** In Oklahoma, recovery.gov lists more than $19 million in spending -- and 15 jobs created -- in yet more congressional districts that don't exist. – That works out to $1.26million for each job. Where do I sign up?
*** In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent – and 39 jobs created -- in nonexistent districts. -$271,794/job. I am willing to move for that much.
*** In Connecticut's 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars. – Now that is the way to do it. Create jobs without the stimulus dollars. But if they didn't get stimulus money why show jobs created? Does every new job created count as being created because of the stimulus?
The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts extends to U.S. territories as well:
*** $68.3 million spent and $72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands. -There is no such thing. The entire area is considered a "district at large".
*** $8.4 million spent and 40.3 jobs created in the 99th congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands. – $208,436/job. I have been to the U.S. Virgin Islands before and would be willing to go back there. Is this in addition to the other money spent in the 1st district? That would be $148.9 million total for the population of 108,612.
*** $1.5 million spent and .3 jobs created in the 69th district (-over $4.5million for just one job.) and $35 million for 142 jobs in the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands. - $246,478/job
*** $47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico's 99th congressional district. - $163,917/job. Having been to Puerto Rico also, I can say that this is living well.
And the best part is the $18 million mistake to create the site in the first place. Why create a site to show transparency and then have it so full of mistakes? Nothing will be done to correct it and the Whitehouse will continue to falsely claim jobs created or saved with no real proof. And all the while, our money will continue to be wasted.
Hope and change boys, hope and change.
Quick question; how many congressional districts are in Arizona? Answer; 8. So how did 30 jobs get saved or created with S761,420 in federal stimulus spending in the 15th district? $34 million in stimulus money has been spent in Arizona's 86th congressional district in a project for the Navajo Housing authority. The Navajo Housing authority is actually located in the 1st congressional district but what about the other money?
Okay, a minor mistake. We found the 34 million and $761,420 isn’t much. We should expect some minor mistakes; after all we are talking billions of dollars being doled out.
But there are other mistakes:
*** In Oklahoma, recovery.gov lists more than $19 million in spending -- and 15 jobs created -- in yet more congressional districts that don't exist. – That works out to $1.26million for each job. Where do I sign up?
*** In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent – and 39 jobs created -- in nonexistent districts. -$271,794/job. I am willing to move for that much.
*** In Connecticut's 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars. – Now that is the way to do it. Create jobs without the stimulus dollars. But if they didn't get stimulus money why show jobs created? Does every new job created count as being created because of the stimulus?
The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts extends to U.S. territories as well:
*** $68.3 million spent and $72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands. -There is no such thing. The entire area is considered a "district at large".
*** $8.4 million spent and 40.3 jobs created in the 99th congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands. – $208,436/job. I have been to the U.S. Virgin Islands before and would be willing to go back there. Is this in addition to the other money spent in the 1st district? That would be $148.9 million total for the population of 108,612.
*** $1.5 million spent and .3 jobs created in the 69th district (-over $4.5million for just one job.) and $35 million for 142 jobs in the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands. - $246,478/job
*** $47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico's 99th congressional district. - $163,917/job. Having been to Puerto Rico also, I can say that this is living well.
And the best part is the $18 million mistake to create the site in the first place. Why create a site to show transparency and then have it so full of mistakes? Nothing will be done to correct it and the Whitehouse will continue to falsely claim jobs created or saved with no real proof. And all the while, our money will continue to be wasted.
Hope and change boys, hope and change.
So you want security?
If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom. – Dwight D. Eisenhower
For some unknown reason, individuals whom I normally consider rational want to give control of the country’s healthcare to a body of individuals who have never run a successful program. Case in point; the H1N1 vaccine. When fears of a swine flu epidemic emerged last spring, the federal government stepped in to ensure the H1N1 vaccine was available for every American—promising 120 million doses by mid-October. But with government managing the effort the vaccine makers missed their deadlines. So now the government is allocating the early doses to those most in need, while millions go without. We’re seeing vaccine shortages, rationing, waiting lines and people dying for lack of medicine. And who is taking responsibility? No one! The swine flu debacle is only a preview of what we can all expect when the government guarantees access to affordable health care.
Another good example is Medicare. Medicare does get near universal coverage for seniors. But it costs taxpayers a lot of money, and much, much more will be needed in the future. The Medicare trustees’ new annual report says that over time Medicare will need an additional $90 trillion more than it’s taking in. I’ve heard politicians say they know how to get control of rising health care costs. But they’ve been running Medicare for 45 years, and it’s about the only thing going broke even faster than General Motors.
For some unknown reason, individuals whom I normally consider rational want to give control of the country’s healthcare to a body of individuals who have never run a successful program. Case in point; the H1N1 vaccine. When fears of a swine flu epidemic emerged last spring, the federal government stepped in to ensure the H1N1 vaccine was available for every American—promising 120 million doses by mid-October. But with government managing the effort the vaccine makers missed their deadlines. So now the government is allocating the early doses to those most in need, while millions go without. We’re seeing vaccine shortages, rationing, waiting lines and people dying for lack of medicine. And who is taking responsibility? No one! The swine flu debacle is only a preview of what we can all expect when the government guarantees access to affordable health care.
Another good example is Medicare. Medicare does get near universal coverage for seniors. But it costs taxpayers a lot of money, and much, much more will be needed in the future. The Medicare trustees’ new annual report says that over time Medicare will need an additional $90 trillion more than it’s taking in. I’ve heard politicians say they know how to get control of rising health care costs. But they’ve been running Medicare for 45 years, and it’s about the only thing going broke even faster than General Motors.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Oops, he did it again?
When President Obama visited the Queen of England, who is about a foot shorter than the President, he didn’t bother to bow, er…. Bend down to shake her hand; he did give her a two handed handshake.
When President Barack Obama visited Saudi Arabia he bowed to the Saudi King and the Whitehouse played it off that he didn’t bow, he merely bent over to give a two handed shake to the king who was shorter than Mr. Obama. "It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah," said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. President Obama is 6’ 1 ½” tall. Based on a video of the bow, er…. Handshakes, King Abdullah is about 6” shorter than the President. Now it appears to me that he bends over at the waist (as you would do when you bow) while shaking hands one handed, then stands up and shakes the Kings hand with both. Maybe I am wrong because the camera angle isn’t the best. Below are pictures. But you decide for yourself. I circled his left hand (which is supposedly also shaking the Kings at this point)
Usually it is out of respect to royalty that you nod your head, though Bill Clinton was taken to task for that in 1994 and again the Whitehouse denied it was a bow. So I question; did the President of the United States bow to the King of a foreign country and if he did what is the significance?
I believe that yes, he did bow, you decide for yourself:
So now the question is what is the significance? But the traditional Miss Manners book of etiquette advises: Americans do not bow to foreign monarchs because that act signified the monarch's power over his subjects. Webster's Dictionary has a couple of definitions of the word bow(ing). (1) "to incline the head or body in salutation or assent or to acknowledge applause" (2)"to bend the head, body, or knee in reverence, submission, or shame" If he did in fact bow it was the first time a President of the United states has bowed to a foreign power; or, in other words, shown submission and shown subservience of the United States to a foreign power.
So what? Well, seems he did it again!!! And this time, it is clear that he is not giving a two handed handshake.
Are these people really that stupid? After all the fuss over him bowing to the Saudi King, you would think someone in the administration would give him a clue about how to properly greet the Emperor of Japan and not be seen as subjugating himself.
Just so you know the proper way for heads of state to meet, here is a video that shows how 46 other heads of state greeted the Emperor of Japan.
Please tell Mr. Obama he is President of the United States. He is the most powerful person in the world and as President (our representative to the world) HE DOES NOT BOW TO ANYONE!!! If he is wanting to make the United States “respected again”, why is he doing stupid things?
I am sure that somehow this has got to be Bush’s fault!
When President Barack Obama visited Saudi Arabia he bowed to the Saudi King and the Whitehouse played it off that he didn’t bow, he merely bent over to give a two handed shake to the king who was shorter than Mr. Obama. "It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah," said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. President Obama is 6’ 1 ½” tall. Based on a video of the bow, er…. Handshakes, King Abdullah is about 6” shorter than the President. Now it appears to me that he bends over at the waist (as you would do when you bow) while shaking hands one handed, then stands up and shakes the Kings hand with both. Maybe I am wrong because the camera angle isn’t the best. Below are pictures. But you decide for yourself. I circled his left hand (which is supposedly also shaking the Kings at this point)
Usually it is out of respect to royalty that you nod your head, though Bill Clinton was taken to task for that in 1994 and again the Whitehouse denied it was a bow. So I question; did the President of the United States bow to the King of a foreign country and if he did what is the significance?
I believe that yes, he did bow, you decide for yourself:
So now the question is what is the significance? But the traditional Miss Manners book of etiquette advises: Americans do not bow to foreign monarchs because that act signified the monarch's power over his subjects. Webster's Dictionary has a couple of definitions of the word bow(ing). (1) "to incline the head or body in salutation or assent or to acknowledge applause" (2)"to bend the head, body, or knee in reverence, submission, or shame" If he did in fact bow it was the first time a President of the United states has bowed to a foreign power; or, in other words, shown submission and shown subservience of the United States to a foreign power.
So what? Well, seems he did it again!!! And this time, it is clear that he is not giving a two handed handshake.
Are these people really that stupid? After all the fuss over him bowing to the Saudi King, you would think someone in the administration would give him a clue about how to properly greet the Emperor of Japan and not be seen as subjugating himself.
Just so you know the proper way for heads of state to meet, here is a video that shows how 46 other heads of state greeted the Emperor of Japan.
Please tell Mr. Obama he is President of the United States. He is the most powerful person in the world and as President (our representative to the world) HE DOES NOT BOW TO ANYONE!!! If he is wanting to make the United States “respected again”, why is he doing stupid things?
I am sure that somehow this has got to be Bush’s fault!
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Be Careful what you wish for
It is a typical Washington process that many political appointees are able to take jobs within the civil service once their political appointment expires — usually at the conclusion of one administration. What often happens as well is Congressional staffers, before an election or shortly thereafter, will move over to the Executive Branch placed into the civil service, in effect, by appointment.
So, for example, when George Bush became President in 2001, a number of Clinton political appointees became civil service employees. As a result, they became subject to civil service hiring and firing rules, which meant they could no longer be replaced simply for having been a Democratic appointee.
This has gone on for a long time and it was instituted to prevent someone from being fired for their political affiliations. Well, this is coming to an end! In a memo from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM); (http://www.chcoc.gov/Transmittals/TransmittalDetails.aspx?TransmittalId=2588) the Director John Berry, sent out a memo dated 11/05/2009 stating:
Beginning January 1, 2010, agencies must seek prior approval from OPM before they can appoint a current or recent political appointee to a competitive or non-political excepted service position at any level under the provisions of title 5, United States Code. OPM will review these proposed appointments to ensure they comply with merit system principles and applicable civil service laws. I have delegated decision making authority over these matters to career Senior Executives at OPM to avoid any hint of political influence.
In no case may an agency make an appointment of the type described below without written authorization from OPM:
A. The appointment of a current political Schedule A or Schedule C Executive Branch employee or a former political Schedule A or Schedule C Executive Branch employee who held the position within the last five years to a competitive or non-political excepted service position under title 5 of the U.S. Code.
B. The appointment of a current Non-career SES Executive Branch employee or a former Non-career SES Executive Branch employee who held the position within the last five years to a competitive or non-political excepted service position under title 5 of the U.S. Code.
So what does this mean? It seems that this is an attempt on the part of the Obama administration to purge the Civil Service roles of the opposition. If you worked for Bush, say bye-bye. Stated another way, “but for” the applicant having served as a political appointee within the past five years, all agencies would not be required to seek review from OPM for all agency positions. Effectively, the ONLY reason EVERY agency will now be REQUIRED to consult OPM is to “ask permission” to hire a person based on their political affiliation. In other words, how many “Republican” registered voters are going to suddenly find problems when they go to vote next year? All because of some error or oversight of course.
Just to give some perspective: The Democrats had a seizure when the Bush administration fired the U.S Attorneys –who serve at the pleasure of the President – and he can fire them whenever he wants. In this case, civil service employees – who do NOT serve at the pleasure of the President – can be fired because they have an R behind their names in the voter polls.
So what happens in 2013? If Obama cannot rally the minority vote like he did for his “historic” election, what will the Democrats say if the next administration purges the roles of Democrats?
Will the Demorats pull the Kennedy move prior to leaving office? In case you forgot; When Mitt Romney (R) was Governor 2004, the Massachusetts House voted to strip the Governor of the power to appoint a successor if Kerry won. Then in 2009, the House changed the law again to give Gov. Deval Patrick (D) the power to appoint a temporary successor to the late Sen. Kennedy until a special election is held next year.
Do the actions of the Democrats seem akin to those of third world dictators?
So, for example, when George Bush became President in 2001, a number of Clinton political appointees became civil service employees. As a result, they became subject to civil service hiring and firing rules, which meant they could no longer be replaced simply for having been a Democratic appointee.
This has gone on for a long time and it was instituted to prevent someone from being fired for their political affiliations. Well, this is coming to an end! In a memo from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM); (http://www.chcoc.gov/Transmittals/TransmittalDetails.aspx?TransmittalId=2588) the Director John Berry, sent out a memo dated 11/05/2009 stating:
Beginning January 1, 2010, agencies must seek prior approval from OPM before they can appoint a current or recent political appointee to a competitive or non-political excepted service position at any level under the provisions of title 5, United States Code. OPM will review these proposed appointments to ensure they comply with merit system principles and applicable civil service laws. I have delegated decision making authority over these matters to career Senior Executives at OPM to avoid any hint of political influence.
In no case may an agency make an appointment of the type described below without written authorization from OPM:
A. The appointment of a current political Schedule A or Schedule C Executive Branch employee or a former political Schedule A or Schedule C Executive Branch employee who held the position within the last five years to a competitive or non-political excepted service position under title 5 of the U.S. Code.
B. The appointment of a current Non-career SES Executive Branch employee or a former Non-career SES Executive Branch employee who held the position within the last five years to a competitive or non-political excepted service position under title 5 of the U.S. Code.
So what does this mean? It seems that this is an attempt on the part of the Obama administration to purge the Civil Service roles of the opposition. If you worked for Bush, say bye-bye. Stated another way, “but for” the applicant having served as a political appointee within the past five years, all agencies would not be required to seek review from OPM for all agency positions. Effectively, the ONLY reason EVERY agency will now be REQUIRED to consult OPM is to “ask permission” to hire a person based on their political affiliation. In other words, how many “Republican” registered voters are going to suddenly find problems when they go to vote next year? All because of some error or oversight of course.
Just to give some perspective: The Democrats had a seizure when the Bush administration fired the U.S Attorneys –who serve at the pleasure of the President – and he can fire them whenever he wants. In this case, civil service employees – who do NOT serve at the pleasure of the President – can be fired because they have an R behind their names in the voter polls.
So what happens in 2013? If Obama cannot rally the minority vote like he did for his “historic” election, what will the Democrats say if the next administration purges the roles of Democrats?
Will the Demorats pull the Kennedy move prior to leaving office? In case you forgot; When Mitt Romney (R) was Governor 2004, the Massachusetts House voted to strip the Governor of the power to appoint a successor if Kerry won. Then in 2009, the House changed the law again to give Gov. Deval Patrick (D) the power to appoint a temporary successor to the late Sen. Kennedy until a special election is held next year.
Do the actions of the Democrats seem akin to those of third world dictators?
Monday, November 9, 2009
The real cost of minimum wage
Everyone is paying attention to the health care debate and no one is paying attention to the unemployment rate. Not the unemployment rate of 10.2%; the unemployment rate of 25.9%. Unemployment has risen to 25.9% in September for teens between 16 and 19 years old; the highest rate recorded since 1948. How can this be?
The unemployment rate for the age group was 16.9% in December 2007 when the recession began. Recessions amplify disadvantages such as lack of work experience. But, where do you get work experience and develop a work ethic if you can’t find a job in the first place? Studies have shown that being shut out of the labor market early in one’s career can lead to persistent, negative effects on a person’s ability to find a job and earn competitive wages for up to a decade or more. A study by researchers at Stanford found that those who do not work as teenagers have lower long-term wages and employability even after 10 years. A high-wage society can only come by making workers more productive, and by destroying starter jobs the minimum wage may reduce long-term earnings.
According to Uncle Sam's Bureau of Labor Statistics:
• Seasonally adjusted teenage unemployment hit 25.9%. That is the highest rate in the nearly 62 years BLS has been reporting this number. The previous record was last month's 25.5%. The record before that was 24.1% in November and December of 1982.
• Unemployment among black teens not enrolled in school is over 50%.
• The rate among 20-24 year-olds is also alarmingly high at 15.1%.
With the economy trillions of dollars in the hole, $0.70 sounds like nothing. The first federal minimum-wage law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, passed in 1938, with a 25-cent-per-hour wage floor and a 44-hour workweek ceiling for most employees. (It also banned child labor.) The federal minimum wage has risen from $5.15 to $7.25 since 2007; the latest raise on July 24, 2009. In total, the extra $2.10 translates to only $4,400 per year for a full-time minimum-wage worker, nosing his/her family of four just above the poverty line.
Washington will deny the reality, and the media won't make the connection, but one reason for these job losses is the rising minimum wage. People that know me, know that I predicted the rise in the minimum wage would result in the loss of teen jobs and sure enough, there are 691,000 fewer teens working now that in July 2007. Set against a backdrop of retired workers who were forced to rejoin the workforce to pay bills parents who’ve been laid off and are trying to care for children, and adults who have seen their retirement funds evaporate (maybe that kind older lady taking your coffee order at McDonalds isn’t working there because she wants to stay busy), young people often find it hard to get any sympathy. Particularly when it seems like the only thing they’re losing is pocket money.
Maybe it can be declared a “crises” and Congress can create a teenage wage of $4 or $5 an hour to help put hundreds of thousands of teens back to work. Without any change, we can expect teen unemployment to remain very high for a long time and place a long-term burden on our future work force.
Things are not all that bad though; the unemployment rate for 20 to 24-year-olds dropped to a still-high 14.9% in September. But, it’s the second month the group’s unemployment rate decreased.
The unemployment rate for the age group was 16.9% in December 2007 when the recession began. Recessions amplify disadvantages such as lack of work experience. But, where do you get work experience and develop a work ethic if you can’t find a job in the first place? Studies have shown that being shut out of the labor market early in one’s career can lead to persistent, negative effects on a person’s ability to find a job and earn competitive wages for up to a decade or more. A study by researchers at Stanford found that those who do not work as teenagers have lower long-term wages and employability even after 10 years. A high-wage society can only come by making workers more productive, and by destroying starter jobs the minimum wage may reduce long-term earnings.
According to Uncle Sam's Bureau of Labor Statistics:
• Seasonally adjusted teenage unemployment hit 25.9%. That is the highest rate in the nearly 62 years BLS has been reporting this number. The previous record was last month's 25.5%. The record before that was 24.1% in November and December of 1982.
• Unemployment among black teens not enrolled in school is over 50%.
• The rate among 20-24 year-olds is also alarmingly high at 15.1%.
With the economy trillions of dollars in the hole, $0.70 sounds like nothing. The first federal minimum-wage law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, passed in 1938, with a 25-cent-per-hour wage floor and a 44-hour workweek ceiling for most employees. (It also banned child labor.) The federal minimum wage has risen from $5.15 to $7.25 since 2007; the latest raise on July 24, 2009. In total, the extra $2.10 translates to only $4,400 per year for a full-time minimum-wage worker, nosing his/her family of four just above the poverty line.
Washington will deny the reality, and the media won't make the connection, but one reason for these job losses is the rising minimum wage. People that know me, know that I predicted the rise in the minimum wage would result in the loss of teen jobs and sure enough, there are 691,000 fewer teens working now that in July 2007. Set against a backdrop of retired workers who were forced to rejoin the workforce to pay bills parents who’ve been laid off and are trying to care for children, and adults who have seen their retirement funds evaporate (maybe that kind older lady taking your coffee order at McDonalds isn’t working there because she wants to stay busy), young people often find it hard to get any sympathy. Particularly when it seems like the only thing they’re losing is pocket money.
Maybe it can be declared a “crises” and Congress can create a teenage wage of $4 or $5 an hour to help put hundreds of thousands of teens back to work. Without any change, we can expect teen unemployment to remain very high for a long time and place a long-term burden on our future work force.
Things are not all that bad though; the unemployment rate for 20 to 24-year-olds dropped to a still-high 14.9% in September. But, it’s the second month the group’s unemployment rate decreased.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Why not Universal thinking?
Let’s have universal healthcare. While we are at it, let’s have universal housing, universal food, universal employment, and universal clothing. Why just stop at healthcare? What about universal automobiles or universal automobile insurance?
A minority (42% as of November 2, 2009) of the American people support universal health care. The majority (54%) oppose it as it is currently written. The Census Bureau estimates that the number of uninsured amounts to 45.7 million people. But the agency might be over counting by millions due to faulty assumptions. Another problem: That 45.7 million includes undocumented immigrants, even though they aren't likely to be covered under new law.
About 3.5 million U. S. residents (about 1% of the population), including 1.35 million children, have been homeless for a significant period of time. Over 37,000 homeless individuals (including 16,000 children) stay in shelters in New York every night. This information was gathered by the Urban Institute, but actual numbers might be higher. 3.5 million!
Hunger in America is a huge problem. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that in 2007:
- 36.2 million people lived in households considered to be food insecure.
- Of these 36.2 million, 23.8 million are adults (10.6 percent of all adults) and 12.4 million are children (16.9 percent of all children).
- The number of people in the worst-off households increased to 11.9 from 10.8 in 2005. This increase in the number of people in the worst-off category is consistent with other studies and the Census Bureau poverty data, which show worsening conditions for the poorest Americans.
- Black (22.2 percent) and Hispanic (20.1 percent) households experienced food insecurity at far higher rates than the national average.
- The ten states with the highest food insecurity rates in 2007 were Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina, Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri.
In October 2009, the number of unemployed persons increased by 558,000 to 15.7 million. The unemployment rate rose by 0.4 percentage point to 10.2 percent. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was little changed over the month at 5.6 million. In October, 35.6 percent of unemployed persons were jobless for 27 weeks or more. The number of persons working part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in October at 9.3 million. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.
Many people do not have the proper clothing to keep them from the effects of exposure. Yes, this affects the homeless and they are covered above, but many are children. Though I could not find official numbers, there were stories of children in schools that had shoes that didn’t fit and when they went to clothing banks and took off their shoes, they usually had no socks either.
As the above examples show, there is a need for a lot of things. Why concentrate on health care? Maslow’s hierarchy of needs states that the most basic needs are physiological: oxygen, food, water, sex, sleep and a relatively constant body temperature. It is after these needs are met that we search out safety needs: security of body, of employment, of resources, of morality, of the family, of health and of property.
So again, why health care? This isn’t even one of the most basic needs. If we are going to provide universal health care, how long till we provide universal housing, universal food, universal employment, and universal clothing? What will be next; universal thinking?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)