Tearing Down the Wall...

Imagine a group wholly opposed to something, who inadvertently rush forward into just such an occurrence.  It's what you might call a self-fulfilling prophecy.  In the movies, we see it all the time.  Fearful for your life, one attempts to run away, only to realize too late that you have ran headlong to your death.  One can remember watching Gene Hackman on the  S.S. Poseidon, yelling back at a group walking off to such a fate, "You're going the wrong way, damn it!"  It seems awful, watching people running toward perceived salvation only to find destruction, but it happens all the time.

With the uproar over the Obama administration's HHS mandate on contraception and religious freedom, the argument has become so clouded in invectives that people are not seeing clearly.  There is a group that believes the Church is attempting to control access, which is not the case.  The Church is simply stating that they don't like it and they don't want you to do it, but  if you do, don't expect them to pay for it or condone it.  It seems to me that I've said the same about a great many things to my teenage children.

But a certain group of people see this debate along with other issues, as part and parcel of a movement that seeks to remake America into a theocracy.  In a MSNBC interview with Chris Matthews, Washington Post political writer Melinda Henneberger said, "Maybe the founders were wrong to guarantee free exercise of religion in the First Amendment..."  They seek to fight the impending Theocracy by legislating Religion into either non-existence or irrelevance. 

Under the HHS mandate, employers who oppose contraception as a matter of religious conscience must pay for it against their will.  Yes there are exceptions for "churches", but not for followers of those churches.  The First Amendment becomes a trivial annoyance in pursuit of what they consider to be good public policy.  But herein lies their fatally flawed reasoning.  The Freedom of Religion is not the monster to be feared, but the gatekeeper that protects us all.

At the time of its writing, the American people found Madison's constitution lacking  While the overall structure was adequate to the task of building our system of government, there was concern for limiting it's power.  A bloody and expensive war was fought for our freedom and it would have been in vain if we were to simply exchange one oppressive regime for another.  The Bill of Rights, a set of amendments outlining the express rights of the people and setting definite limits on the federal governments exercise of power, became the linchpin that brought agreement to our constitution.

In that day, the people understood what it meant to live under oppression.  In fact, many of these peoples, like the pilgrims, came to this new land expressly to escape religious oppression.  The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The rights established with those words work to prevent the Federal body from acting as a Theocracy, whether Catholic, Anglican, Islamic or even Secular Humanism.  It's true that of the individual states, several formed theocratic states, where one must have met certain tests and taken oaths ascribing allegiance to a church and God, to participate in that state's body politic.  The Bill of Rights protects the people from the Federal government, but left much open to the states.  Over time, as the states became more pluralistic, tolerance for others became the norm and theocratic rule disappeared from the states.  Later, the Supreme Court ruled that the wording of the 14th amendment brought the Federal rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights to the states.

The First Amendment is the gatekeeper; the wall that Jefferson spoke of protecting all of us from whatever ideology or ideologues happens to hold power at any given time.  While today's government mandates employer funded contraception, tomorrow's could mandate employer  paid time off for church attendance or chastity guards for teens or even homosexual rehabilitation.  Further down the road, the use of Sharia and the resulting downgrade of women's rights might be deemed "in the public interest" by the ruling class.

When public policy trumps the freedoms guaranteed in our constitution, then where do we go for protection against harmful and wrong public policy.  When our rights are only guaranteed till the next election, then we will fight a new revolution on every ballot.  We will cease to be the America that has stood from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, through Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

When the constitution becomes flexible enough to allow the ruling party to force men and women to ignore the teachings of their church to provide an already accessible and affordable consumer good in the name of public policy, what happens when the "feared" theocrats take power?

And even if we toss out the whole freedom of religion issue, I still haven't seen anyone articulate why the government should have the power to mandate that employers must purchase for their employees, anything unrelated to their job.  Take the words "health care" & "contraception" and replace them with "firearms" & "handguns" in this discussion.  Why would a court see any difference?  At the very least, our right to firearms represents an explicit right in the constitution, as opposed to any implicit or legislated rights.

Now that the Federal government can force employers to buy their employees health care, why stop there?  Surely there are many other consumer goods that may reinforce other policy goals of this and future administrations.  Health care is good, but what about housing or food and water; maybe even broadband access?  It's a list without end.

As in Gattaca, Brave New World, 1984 and other novels and movies of dystopian futures, a government that can achieve control of access, will sooner or later limit access.  Heck, a government board limiting access is explicitly written in the Obamacare law.  I know that it's always clearer in hindsight (and may we never have reason to see it that way), but even proponents of affordable access to health care need to understand that we're going the wrong way.

(Scene from The Poseidon Adventure)

Reverend Scott (Gene Hackman): You're going the wrong way. You're going toward the bow.

Wrong group: That's right, Reverend.

Scott: Wait a minute. You can't get out that end.

Wrong group: Why not?

Scott: Because we're settling by the bow. The bow's underwater. Go to the stern. We'll exit through the engine room.

Wrong group: lt's gone. The only way out is forward.

Scott: How do you know? Did you check the engine room? Did you see it?

Wrong group: l don't have to. We're going forward. Please, come with us, Reverend.

Scott: You're going the wrong way, damn it!

Keep this in mind as you "Lean Forward" - simply moving forward does not necessarily mean that you are making progress.  And sometimes the preacher was right all along.

O Waiver, Where Art Thou?

On May 2nd, I will personally become acquainted with our President's failed promise that under his health care reform law, we could keep our current insurance if we wanted to.  On that day, our union will begin negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement with management to replace the contract that will end on June 30th.  First order of business on May 2nd will be a presentation on health insurance.  Even now, many of our senior members are choosing to retire under the current agreement, rather than take a chance on what our health care benefit will look like on July 1st.

My employer has been self-insured for the vast majority of health care expenditures for many years now.  There are two primary exceptions to this.  One, they pay a third party insurance carrier for a catastrophic coverage plan for its employees and two, our insurance coverage has a lifetime benefit maximum.  On average, less that 1% of employee's health care expenses meet the catastrophic limit each year and as far as I know, none have ever met the lifetime cap.

Over the life of the current five year contract, the cost of our health care plan has averaged a yearly increase in the low single digits with a cumulative increase under 10% over the last four years.  Both management and our union have worked to keep expenses low.  Part of that plan was having our union members cover a greater portion of the health care costs.  Under the previous contract, employees paid less than 20% of expenses, but in the most recent year, employees paid just under 30% of the total cost of the insurance plan.

Additionally, management began offering certain preventative care provisions free of charge to employees.  As they examined the data, the company realized that less than 5% of covered employees would use over a third of the health care dollars spent each year.  It was cheaper to treat and find issues early rather than wait until they became health problems.

Despite the inherent faults in the health care system, my employer, working with my union brothers and sisters had found a way forward to bring what were formerly 15 - 20% yearly increases and created a sustainable program that worked well.  Negotiations for this next contract brought hope that any wage increases would do more than simply pay for the additional health insurance costs.  That, of course, is now out the window.

Obamacare - Accelerating Toward the Abyss

Do you remember the world before Obamacare?

Let's go back to the world of healthcare as it existed 18 months ago.  It's expensive, some go without any insurance and for too many Americans, a serious illness can cause bankruptcy, home foreclosure and other financial pitfalls, but care is available; if not at the doctor's office, then at the ER.  For some, the high price of prescription medication is cost prohibitive.  Our system is heading for the abyss.  Something must be done. 

Obamacare (Health Care Reform Law - PPA) was passed a year ago.  It provided that:

• All Americans must buy insurance that meets certain minimum standards (regardless of cost) under penalty of a fine
• Eliminate normal market incentives to purchase insurance before medical care is needed
• Insurance companies must cover young men and women up til the age of 26 as 'children' on their parents coverage - even if they are married and have a job
• The Federal government will pay large corporations and unions money not to drop coverage for retirees (even if they hadn't planned on dropping coverage)
• The Federal government will stop offering a tax benefit to employers that continue to cover Medicare aged retirees
• Employers that choose to offer insurance coverage to employees may not implement any lifetime cap on benefits paid.
• Funnel money away from patient care into lawyers fees
• Mandate that insurance companies spend a minimum % of fees toward care
• Enroll an additional 30 million into Medicaid
• Incentivize employers to drop all healthcare coverage

Does this new healthcare system fix the problems of our current system?  Does it fix anything?  Have we avoided the abyss or are we now moving faster toward it?  Nancy Pelosi said we had to "pass it to see what's in it".  Well, do we like what's in it?

In truth, Obamacare is a misnomer; the President was just as uninvolved with the formation of this healthcare reform law as he has been on most legislation.  He gave the Democrat leadership a set of parameters of what he wanted and let Congress fill in the details.  He gave many speeches taking ownership of the end product, but it would really be more proper to call this Pelosicare.  At the end of the day though, it's his signature issue, so Obamacare is a reasonable tag.

Back to my point.  In what world would anyone devise a system with this list of provisions and believe they have done anything constructive for our problems?  It has absolutely no chance of 'bending the cost curve down'.  Even with a large increase in taxes, the plan will add to our deficit.  Instead of turning the wheel, we have simply stepped on the accelerator.

Senator Evan Bayh, who voted for the reform law said, [h/t Hotair.com]

The real issue that was not addressed, Laura, that you’ve raised now, and I think appropriately, is the cost, the cost to both the government and to your listeners. We need to take steps now to get the costs of health care under control. That was not dealt with really in an aggressive way in this legislation. I think it now needs to be.

I may be wrong, but I thought cost was the primary reason for the healthcare reform.  But wait, there's more.

The AP is reporting that one of the effects of the new law is that the market for concierge doctors is expanding allowing the wealthy to put a personal physician on retainer.  At the opposite end, the NYT notes that expanding the Medicaid rolls doesn't increase access to healthcare since many care providers refuse to accept Medicaid, which often pays less than the cost of the care provided.

Recently the Obama administration admitted that they had payed out $1.7 billion in payments, as part of Obamacare, called the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program.  It's designed to pay companies to continue coverage for their early retirees, but most of the money has gone to companies such as GE and ATT, along with the United Auto Workers.  This isn't going for a new benefit, but simply to pay them to continue what they already offer.

In addition, AARP will reap a fortune from the new law.  The CBO has admitted that the law will destroy 800,000 jobs and cost states $118 billion over the next 12 years.  The law raises taxes and increases costs.  In fact, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finally admitted that the law double counts money.  They have to do this to make it seem cost-effective.

In another month, I will begin negotiating our union's new collective bargaining agreement with my employer.  The issue of healthcare has always been contentious, but it will even be more so this year.  Rather than allowing us to negotiate between our two sides, we are limited by the new healthcare law.  Certain provisions must be part of our agreement's healthplan, even if neither the union or management want it.  Our hands are tied, while my employer has been provided incentives by the new law, to simply drop coverage.

The new healthcare law is so bad, that employers and unions all over the country are requesting waivers from certain provisions.  Even states are seeking waivers.  The state of Maine has received a waiver from the required care percentage.  Some politicians have said that all 50 states should be exempted if one is.

Other employers that have formerly offered coverage below the new minimum standards, may simply drop coverage now if they do not receive a waiver.  Even employers, such as Starbucks, that supported its passage are now showing concern for the costs.

Some insurers, unable to charge for pre-existing conditions, can no longer offer coverage at a profit and have simply stopped offering coverage to certain segments of the population.

The mandate that all Americans must purchase insurance is being fought in the court system and stands a good chance of being struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional; and it should be.  Let's hope so, because the IRS has increased hiring in preparation to enforce it.

Despite claims that the negotiations for health care reform would be broadcast on CSPAN, the Obama administration has been less than transparent.  When the House Energy and Commerce Committee requested records of healthcare meetings held by the White House, the administration denied the request.  As one of the participants in those talks, Kaiser CEO George Halvorson was reported to have said, "the real discussion this time, behind those closed doors, is about changing the way care is delivered. Not about the cost."

In over 2000 pages, Obamacare manages to stick it's finger into every pie of our healthcare system and will leave us poorer, less healthy and with a system that is less fair than what we had.  The law manages to be wrong in just about every way imaginable.

If you watch the NFL, you have seen how instant replay has changed officiating.  In addition, the NFL officiating committee has sought to clearly define certain issues that are still ambiguous under replay.  One, the 'tuck rule' creates a highly complex determination of whether the quarterback has fumbled, by attempting to discern what his intent was.

Another complex rule states that when a receiver goes to the ground in the process of catching the ball, he must retain possession throughout the entire process.  What this means is that if he falls down making the catch, rolls around a few times the ball cannot become dislodged during that movement.  In practice, by the letter of the law, when a receiver dives to make a catch in the end zone and he, in his exuberance to celebrate, tosses or drops the ball on his way back up from the ground, the pass has to be ruled in complete; even when it's obviously a catch.

I offer this as a way of saying that we need to keep the rules simple.  When we make the rules complex, we allow too much room for unintended consequences.  A basic principle in life is that the rules always progress further and further into complexity until the system becomes inoperable and must be scrapped or reformed.  This complexity creates injustice.

Our tax code is a good example.  It's jam-packed, full of loopholes and complexity that create injustices as profitable companies pay no taxes while the middle class pays its share.  It needs to reformed.  Try and imagine a tax code reform that used 2000 pages to create a system that is even more complex than what we currently have. 

Reform should be a do-over - a chance to remake the system, but our healthcare reform instead pushes us further down the hole.  It doesn't remake anything and it doesn't reform anything.  It simply gives us more of what's already wrong with our system, thereby accelerating its demise.

It's time to hit the brakes and stop the madness before the full implementation of Obamacare.  If we don't, I'm afraid of where we will end up.  We must repeal it and replace it with a few commonsense reforms instead.

1. Allow insurance coverage to be sold across state lines.  Currently, each state regulates coverage seperately creating a complex web of 50 different set of regulations for insurance companies to navigate.
2. Tort reform.  Eliminate one of the chief cost drivers.  In obstetrics, malpractice insurance is driving doctors from the market.  Lower supply means higher costs.
3. De-link coverage from employers.  The greatest turmoil in healthcare is caused during the loss or change of employment, but why?  Changing employment doesn't affect your car insurance or your electric bill.  It shouldn't affect your healthcare coverage either. 

Some have used these issues to propose universal (single payer) coverage, but this does nothing for the cost.  In fact it would cause a larger problem.  Increased demand with lower supply will send costs higher than ever.

These three reforms will enhance competition, put real purchasing power into the hands of individuals (which is lacking) and stop putting our healthcare dollars into the pockets of high priced lawyers.  The end result will be more care for less money.  Isn't this the real reason we wanted reform anyway?

Ruminations From the Void



Not a legal play.....

One weekend of March Madness left to go.  My bracket has been begging for over a week to be put out of its misery.  VCU happily obliged and finished it off.  All the fun aside, I must admit that this is probably a terrible way to determine which team is the best in the nation.  Does anyone really believe that VCU belongs in the Final Four?  Of course they don’t.  But it sure has been fun watching them get there.  NCAA football probably has the better system for deciding the best team, even though it is the most disparaged.  Despite the inherent problems of allowing 68 teams to play a one loss-you’re out tournament, I’m still a big fan of March Madness though.  It’s a three week party for both the hoops aficionados and the March-only fans.  Plus, what championship can top “One Shining Moment”?

>>  GE recently announced that they have stolen many taxpayer dollars from you and me.  The company reported profit of $14.2 billion, $5.1 of it from operations here in the US.  Any guess to how much in tax they paid?  That’s right class – a big fat goose egg.  Well, technically that’s not correct.  They actually received a ‘benefit’ of $3.2 billion.  By my simplistic math calculations, our tax dollars supplied 63% of domestic profit.  Feeling angry yet?  Remember that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt was selected to head President Obama’s Jobs Council, which I thought was as an unpaid volunteer, but it’s hard to say now.

So how does one go about such thievery?  The New York Times explains,

an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan “Imagination at Work” fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.

As NRO’s Kevin Williamson writes at his Exchequer blog in a post aptly titled, Our Tax Code is Corrupt,

In spite of our having the second-highest nominal corporate-income tax rate in the developed world (Hello, Japan!), the rates actually paid by businesses vary wildly according to their political clout. Progressives look at that and see the evidence of businesses’ having undue influence on Washington; I look at that and see evidence of Washington’s undue influence on business. But it’s a two-way street, and the end product smells the same.

The truth is that when Big Business and Big Government collude together, they win and we lose.  All I can add is Flat Tax FTW!  Loopholes aren’t the problem.  The whole ballgame is fixed; or rather in need of fixing.  But if voters don’t demand it, this reform may never happen.  While I have no place in my heart for GE, this isn’t an anti-business issue – it’s a political issue.

Casual Friday Edition

Welcome to today's Casual Friday Edition of Sam's Taste of Chaos.  We had a lot happening this past week as the battle on American Idol began to heat up.  So let's jump right in to the Chaos.

>>     Newsweek polled 1000 average American citizens and gave them the U.S. Citizenship test.  The good new - 62% passed.  The bad news - 38% failed.  The worse news - realizing that nearly 40% of Americans aren't qualified to be Americans.  I'm not sure whether to laugh, cry or crawl under my bed and hide.

Newsweek's website has 20 questions from the 100 possible that are used for the U.S. Citizenship test.  (10 are chosen at random & test-takers must correctly answer 6 to pass).  Take the test and put your score in the comments section (if you dare).  [I did get 20/20, but #17 was a guess.]

Here are a few examples:

When was the Declaration of Independence adopted?

July 4, 1776.

Correct: 67%
Incorrect: 33%

What happened at the Constitutional Convention?

The Constitution was written, or the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.

Correct: 35%
Incorrect: 65%

We elect a U.S. senator for how many years?

Six.

Correct: 39%
Incorrect: 61%

How about now?  Are you laughing, crying or ready to hide under the bed?

>>     For the second time in the past 18 months the White House has been caught making a $2 trillion error in its 10 year budget.  But when your budget is out of control, these type of errors will happen.  A couple different issues are at play in this most recent issue.

The CBO corrects them for $300 billion from obvious mistatements from the Obamacare legislation, another $328 in funding that has never been passed by Congress and the rest in unrealistic projections on future revenues.  As the CBO report states, "...10 years from now, CBO sees a $1.2 trillion deficit that’s almost $400 billion above White House projections."

As Ed Morrissey at Hotair.com put it,

The findings in this puncture two myths perpetrated by Barack Obama.  First, ObamaCare is not “deficit neutral” in the first ten years, let alone constitutes a savings over the decade.  That was true even before the “doctor fix,” but the suspension of reductions in payments that came later sends ObamaCare well into red ink.  Next, the White House is inflating future revenue projections in order to protect its plans for expanded federal spending.  The difference in this case comes to $400 billion in year 10 of the projections, a difference that almost equals the worst total budget deficit under George W. Bush.

I thought the original budget was bad enough - not one year had a budget deficit under $600 billion.  I'm not the only one who thinks his math is fuzzy.

>>     I'm sure some of you are still upset with my stance in support of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.  Christian Schneider has a terrific article on why Gov. Walker tackled the public union issue as he did.  Concessions on pay alone won't fix the problem.

For instance, statewide average teacher salaries increased 6% per year in the 16 years before the Hortonville strike. In the 16 years after the strike, the increase is pegged at 7% annually. Not a big difference, for sure.

But salaries are only a part of the picture. Consider that in the 16 years prior to Hortonville [teacher strike], average state per-pupil spending increased 6.7% per year. Post-strike, it jumped to 9.6% per year in the 16 years following the Hortonville clash. [50% per year increase]

Today, K-12 education funding dwarfs the next-highest state spending program by a measure of 4-to-1. In 2011, Wisconsin spent $5.3 billion on public school aids, compared to $1.3 billion on Medical Assistance.

If those numbers don't make the case, then this graph will.  Notice how the spending curve change coincides with the Wisconsin teacher strikes in the early 1970's.

>>     While we are on the topic of government employees, I can only hope that you, as a taxpayer, are completely satisfied with the job performance of 99.94% of all Federal employees.  Why do I say that?  Because 0.06% of all Federal employees received a poor performance evaluation and were denied a step increase in pay according the most recent data from 2009.

Only 737 out of more than 1.2 million GS employees — or one in every 1,698 — were denied a regularly scheduled step increase and accompanying raise in 2009 because of poor performance...

That equates to a 0.06 percent denial rate, which is far lower than any estimates given of how many poor performers exist in the work force. OPM estimated in 1999 that poor performers make up approximately 3.7 percent of the federal work force. A 2000 survey by the Merit Systems Protection Board found that 14.3 percent of federal employees were judged by co-workers to be performing below reasonably expected levels.

"These step increases are tied to performance," Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said at a March 9 hearing on federal pay.

Well, I for one am glad to know that we have such high performing employees working for the Federal government.  Not sure how those $2 trillion errors keep happening with such good employees, but maybe that's caused by the elected and appointed leaders who can't seem to audit their own bookkeeping much less handle the Federal government's.

>>     A few quick hits on our efforts is Libya.  Here is the Senator Barack Obama in an interview with the Boston Globe during his run for the Presidency. 

In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.

First, rather than berate the man, let me say that, flip-flop or not, I appreciate his position now more than before.  But his new stance does raise some questions.  John Hawkins writing at TownHall wants to know why the left's response to our intervention in Libya has been so wildly different than it was to Iraq.  Right now, we need to support our troops and the war effort, but there should be a discussion to follow afterwards about this.

Second, Marc Thiessen raises another important issue in his article at the Washington Post.  Marc writes,

The U.N. Security Council’s stated objective is “the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence.” This is entirely incompatible with President Obama’s stated objective of getting Moammar Gaddafi “to step down from power and leave.” If the violence ends, Gaddafi will not leave. To the contrary, if military intervention succeeds in achieving the United Nations’ goal of forcing a cease-fire on the warring parties, it will lock in the status quo on the ground.

What does this mean?  If the United States of America wishes to remove Gaddafi by force with anything other than air power, we can't.  And if Gaddafi stops fighting, we're done.  In signing on to the resolution, we have signed away our choice in the matter - unless you believe President Obama will defy a UN resolution.  Perhaps even worse, it ties our hands in aiding the rebels.

Once a cease-fire is in place, the terms set by the Security Council will have been met, and military action by either side would violate international law. This means that if the rebels attempt to remove Gaddafi by force, they could be the ones violating the mandate of the United Nations. The U.N. resolution could end up protecting Gaddafi and guaranteeing the survival of his regime.

The resolution also reaffirms the U.N. arms embargo, which most of the world interprets as barring the transfer of arms to both government and rebel forces.

Whether it's a rookie mistake or part of the plan remains to be seen.

NUTS

>  Hugo Cavez is as big a nut as they make.  Here he is explaining what may have happened to life on Mars. [h/t HOTAIR]

"I have always said, heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet," Chavez said in speech to mark World Water Day.

"Careful! Here on planet Earth where hundreds of years ago or less there were great forests, now there are deserts. Where there were rivers, there are deserts," Chavez said, sipping from a glass of water.

For the record, here is the truth on our forest lands in America,

About 30 percent of the 2.3 billion acres of land area (745 million acres) in the U.S. is forest today as compared to about one-half in 1630 (1.0 billion acres). Some 300 million acres of forest land have been converted to other uses since 1630, predominantly because of agricultural uses in the East.

The forest resources of the U.S. have continued improving in general condition and quality, as measured by increased average size and volume of trees. This trend has been evident since the 1960s and before. The total forestland acreage has remained stable since 1900.

Two significant changes have helped stabilize our forestland.  One, Teddy Roosevelt began the modern Conservation movement and two, we moved away from using wood as an energy source.  What replaced it?  Coal and oil.  Who has a lot of oil?  Venezuela.  You'd think the President of Venezuela might know about this oil stuff...

>>  War by committee.  Apparently France believes the Libyan war should be fought under the direction of a steering committee.

France objected to NATO being in command of the war operations on a day-to-day basis and has now proposed a new "political steering committee," made up of foreign ministers from the United States, European, and Arab states, to oversee the war.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé announced on Tuesday that the British are in agreement with the proposal but the French government has not said anything about the position of the Obama administration.

If you've ever worked with a steering committee, God help you in getting anything accomplished quickly.  I can only hope that we are not on board with this idea.

>>  President Obama ran off to Brazil to create jobs back here at home.  Which makes this a little hard to swallow.  From Reuters, [h/t Gateway Pundit]

The United States seeks to be “a strategic energy partner” to Brazil, which recently discovered major new offshore oil reserves. Obama said the United States wants to be one of Brazil’s “best customers” when the oil starts flowing.

In addition, we will loan Brazil money to get the drilling started.  On a side note, thousands of American oil workers are still out of work waiting for the Obama administration to allow the Gulf rigs to operate. 

As Big Government put it, "To be fair, President Obama is in favor of drilling…but just not in the United States."  Sad, but true.

>>  Anthony Wiener, New York Representative, can often be seen on Fox, CNN, MSNBC yapping away like, well a little dog.  Here he is taking two sides on Obamacare in two different stories.  Here, he says,

"If lightning strikes, and it turns out that as many of us believe, the Supreme Court turns out to be a third political branch of government and they strike down the mandate -- big deal,"

"The solution, if the mandate is struck down, is not that the bill falls like the house of cards ... the solution is going to be offering something everyone agrees is constitutional and that's the public option in the exchange."

As he contemplates running for mayor of New York City, he has a different take,

"If you have better ideas that can accomplish the same thing, go for it,’” said Weiner. “I’m in the process now of trying to see if we can take [President Barack Obama] up on it in the city of New York, … and I’m taking a look at all of the money we spend in Medicaid and Medicare and maybe New York City can come up with a better plan."

Funny how these legislators do one thing in Congress, but it's suddenly all different out in the real world.  Let's not forget that the entire state of Maine has received a waiver from core provisions of Obamacare, so it should be a cinch to waiver NYC.

Mitt Romney has suggested giving a waiver to all 50 states.  Wouldn't it be easier to just repeal the stupid thing?

>>  NBC's Andrea Mitchell took up the task of defining the Obama Doctrine since the White House won't.  Here is Allahpundits view at Hotair.

it’s simple as can be. If (1) there’s a preventable humanitarian crisis looming and (2) the benefits of intervention outweigh the costs and (3) there’s international support for intervening, then “go for it.” Question: What if (1) and (2) are satisfied but not (3)? Just … let ‘em die, then?

This seems to leave a fairly large hole in the logic.  My local police department, sheriff's department and the Missouri State Highway Patrol may find working together on a big bust to be beneficial, but they don't need each other's approval to stop a crime in progress.  Neither should the United States of America.

Use the United Nations for whatever good we can, but we should never allow them to hold the leash on our military.

Well, that's my time.  You've been great.  I'll leave you with this last image of the new Wonder Woman for TV.  Please add your thoughts on the redesigned heroine's costume.

God Bless.

Ruminations From the Void



Meaningless Graphic



*   Baseball season is upon us and I'm afraid my beloved St. Louis Cardinals are, sadly, already out of contention.  With the loss of ace pitcher Adam Wainwright and the addition of a Lance 'Crutches' Berkman to Right Field/DL, it could be a very difficult year for the Redbirds.  If nothing else, it should make it clear to Cardinal Nation that it takes more than one $30 million man to make a winning team.  I'm not saying Albert Pujols is not worth the money, but not at the cost of fielding a competitive team.  The new 72" 3D TV may be worth $10,000, but not if it means I stop making my mortgage payment.

*  Good news for parents and society.  Abstinence is not dead.  Recent studies show that more teens are choosing not to have sex.  From the Washington Post,

Among the findings of a sweeping federal government survey of American sexual behavior is one that may surprise those bewailing a permissive and eros-soaked popular culture: More than one-quarter of people interviewed in their late teens and early 20s had never had sex.

And the number was growing.

The latest round of the quaintly named National Survey of Family Growth found that among 15-to-24-year-olds, 29 percent of females and 27 percent of males reported no sexual contact with another person ever – up from the 22 percent of both sexes when the survey was last conducted in 2002.

[h/t Kathryn Lopez, NRO]

Perhaps this is a reflection of President Bush's push for including abstinence in school's sex education.  In the 1980's, drug use declined during Nancy Reagan's "Just say no" campaign.  The two residents of the White House can have a tremendous impact on our young people, so shouldn't the current First Lady find a more urgent message than "Eat your veggies".   The President has gone on the record to tell us to "Check your tire pressure" to help with fuel economy.  I mean, I'm really going to lose it if I hear Michelle start a "Wait 30" campaign to encourage children to wait 30 minutes after eating before swimming.

*  Obamacare may be over before it really began.  President Obama's administration asked Judge Vinson on clarification of the judge's ruling that the new Health Care Reform law was unconstitutional.  The judge explained that he failed to issue an injunction against the law's implementation because he assumed that it wouldn't be necessary.  Here's what he wrote regarding this clarification,

So to “clarify” my order and judgment: The individual mandate was declared unconstitutional. Because that “essential” provision was unseverable from the rest of the Act, the entire legislation was void. This declaratory judgment was expected to be treated as the “practical” and “functional equivalent of an injunction” with respect to the parties to the litigation. This expectation was based on the “longstanding presumption” that the defendants themselves identified and agreed to be bound by, which provides that a declaratory judgment against federal officials is a de facto injunction. To the extent that the defendants were unable (or believed that they were unable) to comply, it was expected that they would immediately seek a stay of the ruling, and at that point in time present their arguments for why such a stay is necessary, which is the usual and standard procedure. It was not expected that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to “clarify.” [h/t Avik Roy, NRO]

In legal speak, this was a smack down on the Obama's administration.  As it stands now, Obama has seven days to get this fast-tracked for the Supreme Court or the administration will be instructed to stop implementation of the law.

*  While we are on the topic of health care, Jim Manzi comes to a dramatic conclusion after looking at the results of the RAND Health Insurance Experiment.  Jim says,

Providing people coverage of their medical costs caused no average improvement in health.

That is one very big argument against a costly universal health care program.  As we have seen all too well in our home over the past few years, more care does not equal improved health.  My daughter has had procedures, medicines, and multiple specialists while seeing absolutely no improvement in her health.  She is one very frustrated young woman. 

Just like my old car was going to drip oil no matter what I fixed, some people are more prone to getting a sinus, ear or bladder infection and no amount of money spent is going to fix that.  Well at least not unless we're in some sci-fi movie where they're changing people's DNA.  And then, it usually turns them into psychos, monsters or zombies (oh my).  It's hard to justify the cost if that's the end result.

*  Speaking of Science-fiction, a Nasa Scientist claims to have discovered alien life forms here on Earth.  Searching within a class of meteorites - CI1 carbonaceous chondrites - of which only 9 such meteorites are known to exist on Earth, Dr. Richard Hoover claims to have found alien lifeforms, some of which are similar to organisms on earth.  In his own words,

“The exciting thing is that they are in many cases recognizable and can be associated very closely with the generic species here on earth.  There are some that are just very strange and don’t look like anything that I’ve been able to identify, and I’ve shown them to many other experts that have also come up stumped.”

When another NASA scientist was questioned about Hoover's findings, he expressed a need for caution.  He stopped short of saying that Dr. Hoover often sits by himself in the corner of the cafeteria eating sugar sandwiches while talking to the ghost of Genghis Khan, but he seemed doubtful about the claim.

I don't doubt the sincerity of the lonely Dr. Hoover, but finding fossilized organisms on the surface of a meterorite that seem to bear a remarkable similarity to earth life, is a bit like finding a spot of blood on the floor of a pizza joint that tastes remarkably like tomato sauce.  He has his conclusions and I have mine.  We'll see who's right after further study from other scientists.

*  For those who think I've been too hard on the Public Employee Unions in Wisconsin, the average teacher in the Milwaukee Public Schools received compensation in the amount of $101,091 - that's $59,500 in salary plus $41,591 in benefits.  As a total package that is comparable to what the plant managers at my company make.  The difference is our managers are considered Exempt employees and are not eligible to form a union and collectively bargain.  As I've said before, this isn't really about money after all now, is it? [h/t John McCormack, Weekly Standard]

*  Gas prices getting you mad.  Don't expect much relief from the White House.  Obama does not seem interested in allowing the gulf oil industry to get back into action, which along with the events in the Middle East are causing the upward shift.  I say shift and not spike because a spike implies prices falling, which I don't expect to happen.

According to the Energy Information Administration, the Obama offshore drilling moratorium will cause a 13-percent fall in domestic offshore oil production this year, which translates to a loss of about 220,000 barrels of oil a day. That means lower GDP growth for the nation, higher gas prices for all Americans, lower tax revenues for the federal government, and most importantly, fewer jobs for Americans living in the Gulf region.

[h/t Bryan Preston, PJ Tatler]

The administration may begin using some of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a short term stopgap, but as long as we are drilling less instead of more, this administration is condemning us to a large and long term increase in fuel prices.  Chevy sold less than 300 Volt electric cars in February.  Obama wants that to change.  Allowing gas prices to climb to $4 or $5 a gallon is a feature of his energy plan, not a bug.

*  Any lobster fans on a budget out there?  Sorry, but the McLobster will not be going nationwide, McDonald's announced last week.  But it does appears that my wish has finally come true.

*  Blogging may be a little short the next few days.  I am going to be in Jefferson City, Missouri meeting with state legislators discussing the issues I think are important for Missouri.  On my agenda:

• Stop the push for a Right to Work law
• Cut the corporate sales tax rate
• Fund tax incentives that make Missouri competitive
• Greater use of the E-verify system to stop the employment of illegal aliens
• Cut, cut, cut the red tape on small businesses
• Fight the implementation of Obamacare
• End the practice of funeral protests
• Discuss the different Fair Tax proposals (I'm inclined against it)
• End the practice of regulating normal household products that may be used for Meth production (bath salts? - really? Where does it stop?)
• School vouchers / school choice

If I'm missing anything important, please let me know.  Let your voice be heard.

Have a great week!

Go...go with God, but just go.

Really, Claire!!!

As some of you may know, the US House of Representatives voted to repeal the healthcare law passed a year ago (Obamacare).  Repeal passed by a larger margin than the vote to pass it last year and it came without all the drama and games that surrounded that vote.  Despite efforts to avoid it, the Senate voted yesterday on an Obamacare repeal measure which failed by a vote of 47 - 51.

Both then and today, more Americans oppose Obamacare and feel it should be repealed.  26 states have taken the Federal government to court over it.  In my state of Missouri, a ballot measure was passed in August last year to deny the Federal government authority to enforce the individual mandate contained in the law.  The individual mandate had previously been declared unconstitutional by a judge in Virginia.  Now this week, the entire law was thrown out as unconstitutional in a lower court ruling in Florida by Judge Roger Vinson.  Despite all this, not one single Senate Democrat voted to repeal yesterday.  My Senator, Claire McCaskill went against 71% of her constituents to vote against repeal. 


So with our best Seth Meyer impersonation, SAMSTOC brings you:

REALLY!!! with Sam Ritter

Really, Claire!
You have now voted twice for a healthcare law that Americans don't want.

Really, Claire!!
With unemployment sky high, you voted to keep this new healthcare law that is so bad for businesses that over 700 waivers have been issued exempting them from its provisions.

Really, Claire!!!
Despite two court rulings, you felt it best to represent the people of Missouri by voting a second time for this unconstitutional law.

Really, Claire!!!!
When 71% of your fellow Missourian voted against this healthcare law in August last year, you decided that they just "don't realize" how great it is and disregarded their wishes by voting for it again.

Really, Claire!!!!!
And still, even though you now disapprove of the individual mandate, you couldn't find the backbone to vote against your party and side with the voters of Missouri by voting to repeal this unconstitutional healthcare law.

REALLY, CLAIRE!!!  REALLY!!!

It's time for Claire to go.  Really.