It has been a long time since we had a popular craze similar to "pet rocks" but the time has arrived when it has become popular to buy into another childish game.
The world is unhappy with the "human rights" record of China; and well it should. Except for the freedom to make money, capitalist style, China deprives its citizens of human rights possessed by about 20% of the rest of the world. China is not unique in having a controlling government, but other countries are not hosting the Olympics for a while yet so attention is focused on the mammoth of the east who, incidentally, owns a big chunk of the United States debt.
As do-gooders around the world whine and wring their hands in sorrow, China’s human rights practices will not go away anytime soon; and if and when they do, it will not be because other countries disapprove. In some ways China is to be admired for the way they address whatever they perceive as threats to their country. Of course, it goes without saying that a country with the ability to eradicate such threats will inevitably use this power in many instances civilized countries would disapprove. Nonetheless, who among us thinks China will not withstand Islamic terror much more successfully than any other country because of their "style", for example?
Like many Asian cultures, China has a very strong sense of "self" and disrespect, real or perceived, is not taken lightly. Those "well meaning" among us who advocate boycott of the Olympics in China this summer fail to appreciate the major impact such action will have not only on the Chinese government but the Chinese people as well. China is rightfully proud of advancements it has made economically and scientifically in a very short time. Fifty years ago it would never have been predicted by even the most astute of us that China would have developed so far so fast.
An Olympic boycott of one form or another will never cause any change in the internal working of the country. Like the pet rock, those that believe in it will experience the same meaningless self gratification without any mature sense of accomplishment. The only result will be a poke in the ribs of an enormous giant with whom you want to get along as much as possible and not needlessly anger. That is not to say there may not be a time and place when it may be necessary to risk provoking China to actually protect our self interest and citizens; it’s just that we should have a better reason to do so than objecting to China’s internal human rights restrictions.
If the truth be told there are countries treating their citizens far worse than China and little or nothing is done individually or collectively to correct or even object meaningfully to such conduct. The examples are too numerous to mention but the needless loss of millions of lives in Africa is one.
If bad behavior toward its citizens is reason for taking some sort of action, how come there is so much criticism of the United States for taking action to free Iraqis from the horrendous conduct of Saddam Hussein and his sons? Are not indiscriminate killing, torture and ethnic cleansing sufficient for the world to notice a need to do something about it?
Another point worth noting as President Bush contemplates whether or not to make the meaningless gesture of boycotting the Olympic starting ceremony as some other nationals leaders are doing. In times of crisis, big or small, a person or country is likely to regard an act of respect and separation from the critical crowd as very meaningful. Even though nothing may actually be said about it, China will be very pleased with the United States for not joining with other countries as they slap China in the face in an act which China will undoubtedly perceive as disrespect causing an Asian "loss of face" which will be long remembered.
President Bush should not play the pet rock game; he should take this public opportunity to recognize China for its accomplishments and set aside differences over meaningful issues for another quiet time.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
To avoid giving Ripley’s ‘Believe it or Not’ something to write about, be careful who you vote for in November
In 1918 Robert Ripley conceived and drew a cartoon he entitled "Believe It or Not!" which appeared in the New York Globe. It dealt with bizarre events and items so strange and unusual that readers might question them. In a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court three Justices took a position which would have made Ripley’s cartoon.
A straightforward case of murder was decided by a court in Texas which convicted confessed killer Jose Ernesto Medellin of rape and murder of two Houston teen-age girls in 1993 and sentenced him to death in 1994. Medellin’s conviction was brought before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, also known as the World Court, on the grounds that the conviction violated the 1963 Vienna Convention. This treaty purports to provide criminals arrested in countries other than their homeland access to their homelands consular officials. Medillin was in the United States illegally at the time of the crime and when he was arrested. Mexico took the case to the International Court of Justice and the court ruled in favor of Mexico. The World Court’s decision would apply not only to Medillan’s conviction but also to 50 other convicted Mexican nationals nationwide.
President Bush impressed by the World Court’s decision told Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to order the Texas court to reopen the Medillin case. The president said that his decision was reason enough for Texas to grant a new hearing in the case because we should abide by the World Court’s decision.
Fortunately for the rule of law according to our laws and constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with the President and the World Court. Chief Justice Roberts wrote an 89 page opinion for a majority of six Justices that said while the congress had by acceptance of the treaty authorized the president to represent the United States before the United Nations, the International Court of Justice and the Security Council, his authority "speaks to the president’s international responsibilities, not unilateral authority to create domestic law."
"The authority expressly conferred by congress in the international realm cannot be said to ‘invite’ the presidential action here. At bottom, [nothing] supports the president’s claim that congress has acquiesced in his asserted power to establish his own federal law or to override state law."
California-based "Criminal Justice Legal Foundation" filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of the family of one of the murdered girls. They praised the Supreme Court ruling and said that the court made it clear that treaties do not override state law until and unless congress implements them with legislation.
So why should this case be an item for "Ripley’s Believe it or Not"; because three Supreme Court Justices held in favor of the supremacy of the World Court over U.S. and state law. Can you imagine what George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would have said to that? They and others supported a revolution against foreign tyranny to create an independent country. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and David H. Souter would have the United States subject to the machinations of international law as dictated by the World Court and the American Constitution be damned.
Be very careful who you vote for in November or we may see many more Supreme Court decisions suitable for Ripley.
A straightforward case of murder was decided by a court in Texas which convicted confessed killer Jose Ernesto Medellin of rape and murder of two Houston teen-age girls in 1993 and sentenced him to death in 1994. Medellin’s conviction was brought before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, also known as the World Court, on the grounds that the conviction violated the 1963 Vienna Convention. This treaty purports to provide criminals arrested in countries other than their homeland access to their homelands consular officials. Medillin was in the United States illegally at the time of the crime and when he was arrested. Mexico took the case to the International Court of Justice and the court ruled in favor of Mexico. The World Court’s decision would apply not only to Medillan’s conviction but also to 50 other convicted Mexican nationals nationwide.
President Bush impressed by the World Court’s decision told Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to order the Texas court to reopen the Medillin case. The president said that his decision was reason enough for Texas to grant a new hearing in the case because we should abide by the World Court’s decision.
Fortunately for the rule of law according to our laws and constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with the President and the World Court. Chief Justice Roberts wrote an 89 page opinion for a majority of six Justices that said while the congress had by acceptance of the treaty authorized the president to represent the United States before the United Nations, the International Court of Justice and the Security Council, his authority "speaks to the president’s international responsibilities, not unilateral authority to create domestic law."
"The authority expressly conferred by congress in the international realm cannot be said to ‘invite’ the presidential action here. At bottom, [nothing] supports the president’s claim that congress has acquiesced in his asserted power to establish his own federal law or to override state law."
California-based "Criminal Justice Legal Foundation" filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of the family of one of the murdered girls. They praised the Supreme Court ruling and said that the court made it clear that treaties do not override state law until and unless congress implements them with legislation.
So why should this case be an item for "Ripley’s Believe it or Not"; because three Supreme Court Justices held in favor of the supremacy of the World Court over U.S. and state law. Can you imagine what George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would have said to that? They and others supported a revolution against foreign tyranny to create an independent country. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and David H. Souter would have the United States subject to the machinations of international law as dictated by the World Court and the American Constitution be damned.
Be very careful who you vote for in November or we may see many more Supreme Court decisions suitable for Ripley.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
We can win in Iraq, but will Democrats let us?
The appearance of General Petraeus at various Senate Committees and the testimony he gave about the situation is Iraq was in stark contrast to the questions and comments by Democrat presidential aspirants. The General set the example of what is good about the United States and represented the spirit of thousands of men and women of our military in Iraq fighting for the safety of their country. The Democrats in contrast could only think about political advantage and what they could do to cause our country’s defeat at the hand of terrorists who want to destroy us; for them the question is not what we can do to beat back terrorism, it’s what can be done to surrender to it.
After initially agreeing with most everyone in the world about the necessity to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein because of the threat he posed to the world, Democrats gradually began to realize that Americans no longer have the stomach for wars lasting more than fifteen minutes and with their media allies launched an increasing crescendo against the Iraq war effort which ultimately became their battle cry; demanding withdrawal of American military from Iraq, not today, but yesterday.
Along the way Democrats sought to impose "conditions" for continual funding of the military needs. At one time they said that we had to control the violence, another time they said we had to show some political improvement in Iraq and still another condition was proof that Iraqis were taking on the job of protecting their country so American troops could leave. As each "condition" was met, Democrats formulated others; the objective being to appear to be supporting the troops while setting the stage for demands to withdraw.
The addition of more American soldiers in what is commonly referred to as the "surge" was wildly condemned by anti-war Democrats but President Bush carried on with it anyway. The result was that violence did decrease and Iraq became safer for Iraqis and the American military. Although unfortunate American casualties were still suffered, our losses decreased; nontheless the liberal press continued to write front page headlines reporting the death of each soldier as it occurred.
Recently we saw an example of the Iraqi government attempting to subdue insurgent elements without American help. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, ordered and led contingents of the Iraqi military against Shiite paramilitary forces in Basra. Iraqi government forces and the Mahdi Army clashed after Maliki issued a government ultimatum to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to disband his militia who controlled the oil-rich Basra region.
Several things about this are noteworthy. Maliki has been generally assumed to favor Shiites over Sunnis and Kurds because he himself is a Shiite and has been widely criticized as not representing all Iraqis. His effort to bring anti-government Shiite forces under control shows that there is a sincere effort to form a national government with national priorities. The ability of Maliki to marshal a significant military fighting force in relatively short order demonstrates the American undertaking to train an Iraqi military force has had at least some success and the Iraqi military was able to respond when called upon by their government. It has been reported that army components of 14,000 soldiers were sent to Basra and for the most part fought commendably.
A less obvious lesson may be learned by the recent Iraqi action. Basra was deemed to be pacified and the British left after having been responsible for the area for several years. After the British left armed Shiite militia took over and controlled Basra and the oil production. Those who demand immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should learn what the effect of removing American military from the country would be following the experience of what happened in Basra after the British troop withdrawal. Not only would anti-American forces take control, but al-Qaeda would develop a stronghold and a base for terror operations just as they had in Afghanistan during the Taliban regime. Furthermore, we would be leaving those Iraqis who supported and helped Americans at the non mercy of vicious Islamic Nazis.
Despite the testimony of General Petraeus and a factual report of progress in Iraq, Senator Hillary Clinton said "I fundamentally disagree. Rather, I think it could be fair to say that it might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again." To me this is a childish comment reminiscent of the adage "Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up."
Senator Obama’s contribution was "Start bringing troops home." He said "He worries that the goals — completely eliminating al-Qaeda and Iranian influences — may be impossible to achieve and troops could be there for 20 or 30 years in a fruitless effort."
If either of these Democrat presidential contestants achieves the presidency, we will see another example that we are our own worst enemy. With either of them as president would we be able to win in our struggle for survival against an ideology that wants to rule the world and replace freedom with the kind of mentality we fought a brutal war fifty years ago to avoid?
After initially agreeing with most everyone in the world about the necessity to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein because of the threat he posed to the world, Democrats gradually began to realize that Americans no longer have the stomach for wars lasting more than fifteen minutes and with their media allies launched an increasing crescendo against the Iraq war effort which ultimately became their battle cry; demanding withdrawal of American military from Iraq, not today, but yesterday.
Along the way Democrats sought to impose "conditions" for continual funding of the military needs. At one time they said that we had to control the violence, another time they said we had to show some political improvement in Iraq and still another condition was proof that Iraqis were taking on the job of protecting their country so American troops could leave. As each "condition" was met, Democrats formulated others; the objective being to appear to be supporting the troops while setting the stage for demands to withdraw.
The addition of more American soldiers in what is commonly referred to as the "surge" was wildly condemned by anti-war Democrats but President Bush carried on with it anyway. The result was that violence did decrease and Iraq became safer for Iraqis and the American military. Although unfortunate American casualties were still suffered, our losses decreased; nontheless the liberal press continued to write front page headlines reporting the death of each soldier as it occurred.
Recently we saw an example of the Iraqi government attempting to subdue insurgent elements without American help. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, ordered and led contingents of the Iraqi military against Shiite paramilitary forces in Basra. Iraqi government forces and the Mahdi Army clashed after Maliki issued a government ultimatum to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to disband his militia who controlled the oil-rich Basra region.
Several things about this are noteworthy. Maliki has been generally assumed to favor Shiites over Sunnis and Kurds because he himself is a Shiite and has been widely criticized as not representing all Iraqis. His effort to bring anti-government Shiite forces under control shows that there is a sincere effort to form a national government with national priorities. The ability of Maliki to marshal a significant military fighting force in relatively short order demonstrates the American undertaking to train an Iraqi military force has had at least some success and the Iraqi military was able to respond when called upon by their government. It has been reported that army components of 14,000 soldiers were sent to Basra and for the most part fought commendably.
A less obvious lesson may be learned by the recent Iraqi action. Basra was deemed to be pacified and the British left after having been responsible for the area for several years. After the British left armed Shiite militia took over and controlled Basra and the oil production. Those who demand immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should learn what the effect of removing American military from the country would be following the experience of what happened in Basra after the British troop withdrawal. Not only would anti-American forces take control, but al-Qaeda would develop a stronghold and a base for terror operations just as they had in Afghanistan during the Taliban regime. Furthermore, we would be leaving those Iraqis who supported and helped Americans at the non mercy of vicious Islamic Nazis.
Despite the testimony of General Petraeus and a factual report of progress in Iraq, Senator Hillary Clinton said "I fundamentally disagree. Rather, I think it could be fair to say that it might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again." To me this is a childish comment reminiscent of the adage "Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up."
Senator Obama’s contribution was "Start bringing troops home." He said "He worries that the goals — completely eliminating al-Qaeda and Iranian influences — may be impossible to achieve and troops could be there for 20 or 30 years in a fruitless effort."
If either of these Democrat presidential contestants achieves the presidency, we will see another example that we are our own worst enemy. With either of them as president would we be able to win in our struggle for survival against an ideology that wants to rule the world and replace freedom with the kind of mentality we fought a brutal war fifty years ago to avoid?
Monday, April 7, 2008
“… from each according to his means.”
If congress has a bill that needs to be disguised from the public, they are masters of coining titles so that the public is confused into thinking the legislation is worthwhile. Actually, this ploy may be useful to finagle the law passed other legislators who generally don’t take the time to read what they are inflicting on an unwary public. Some examples that come to mind are the Energy Security and Independence Act which provides neither security nor energy independence, and the Campaign Finance Law which may have been better titled the Incumbent Protection Act.
Anything that has to do with redistribution of wealth is a prime target for inventive titling. Those among us that actually pay taxes are generally tapped for more and more money to give to the "more unfortunate among us"; to use standard Democrat phraseology. It matters not that more than 44 million adults pay no income taxes at all, that’s 40% of the households in the country; not a penny. Inevitably the government still goes back to the well where people who worked hard, made sacrifices, delayed gratification – reside, to finance ever-increasing programs to redistribute their wealth. To liberals, there is no limit to their generosity when giving away other people’s money.
The highest 10% of income earners paying taxes pay 71% of income tax revenue received by the federal government. To further put this in perspective, 40% pay 99% of the total income taxes collected. If 40% pay no taxes at all, that means 10% of us pay at most 1% of income taxes. Where does all the money doled out by the government for one welfare program or another come from you may ask? Well, if you followed this simple arithmetic it is clear that 40% of us are supporting the give-away of billions to at least 59% of the total population. Is this a great country or what?
Ari Fleischer wrote last year:
"According to a recent study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, those who make more than $43,200 (the top 40%) pay 99.1% of all income taxes, the taxes that support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, for example, fund the federal portion of transportation, education, environmental and welfare spending.Those who made more than $87,300 in 2004, the top 10%, paid 70.8% of all income taxes, an increase from their share of 48.1% in 1979. Think about it. Ten percent pay seven out of every 10 dollars and their share of the burden is rising."
Ari Fleischer also observed with respect to just payroll taxes:
"Top earners, on the other hand, pay payroll taxes so their money can be redistributed to others. According to the CBO study, the top 20% of workers, those with incomes over $64,300, pay 44.2% of the payroll tax. … In return, when it's time to retire, lower-income workers typically receive more in Social Security benefits than they paid in, while the wealthy, who paid the most in taxes, simply can't live long enough to get back what they paid. For much of the middle class and the wealthy, Social Security isn't a retirement program -- it's another program that redistributes their income."
Where do you fall in these income ranges? If your family income is $43,700 or even $87,300 do you think you are "rich"? The Democrats think you are, or at least they say they think you are when they wish to criticize the "Bush tax cuts".
Of course, to hear the liberals, socialists and their allies in the news media; the "rich" i.e. the "fortunate 40%", are not paying enough. So if and when taxes are reduced there is a hue and cry that only the "rich" will benefit. It’s never explained that a tax reduction only applies to those really paying taxes.
All of which takes us to the delightfully named "Earned Income Tax Credit" (EITC). If you didn’t know better and took the title at face value, you would think this was a plan to extend a credit to those paying taxes; not so my dear.
The EITC program redistributes money from those who pay income taxes to 22 million families and individuals with incomes less than $36,348. These workers not only don't have to pay any income tax under current tax laws, they are given a government check as a gift from the other tax payers. Broad marginal income tax rate cuts and continual expansions of the earned income tax credit (EITC) for non tax payers has created a situation where fewer people are paying more and more of the income tax. When the lowest tax rate was cut to 10% from 15% by President Bush in 2001, several million additional people were excused from paying any income tax.
The Earned Income Tax Credit is couched so as to be described as a "tax credit" but it is a credit given to those that pay no taxes. In reality it is a tax-free grant of money to those that qualify, single individuals, single parents and parents with "qualifying children". A qualifying child can be under age 19 at the end of the tax year or under age 24 if classified as a full-time student for at least one long semester or equivalent.
It is also not necessary for someone to be a parent to be able to receive a "credit". Persons without qualifying child can also get the government handout as long as they are not claimed as a dependent by someone else. In this category the claimant must be over 24 years old.
Today, the EITC is one of the largest welfare programs in the United States.
I believe that it is appropriate to help people in need under some circumstances. But why can’t congress call a shovel a shovel; are they worried they won’t be able to sell it to the 99% of workers who will foot the bill? By the way, if one doesn‘t pay any taxes, what is the "earned income tax" against which the "credit" is applied?
Anything that has to do with redistribution of wealth is a prime target for inventive titling. Those among us that actually pay taxes are generally tapped for more and more money to give to the "more unfortunate among us"; to use standard Democrat phraseology. It matters not that more than 44 million adults pay no income taxes at all, that’s 40% of the households in the country; not a penny. Inevitably the government still goes back to the well where people who worked hard, made sacrifices, delayed gratification – reside, to finance ever-increasing programs to redistribute their wealth. To liberals, there is no limit to their generosity when giving away other people’s money.
The highest 10% of income earners paying taxes pay 71% of income tax revenue received by the federal government. To further put this in perspective, 40% pay 99% of the total income taxes collected. If 40% pay no taxes at all, that means 10% of us pay at most 1% of income taxes. Where does all the money doled out by the government for one welfare program or another come from you may ask? Well, if you followed this simple arithmetic it is clear that 40% of us are supporting the give-away of billions to at least 59% of the total population. Is this a great country or what?
Ari Fleischer wrote last year:
"According to a recent study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, those who make more than $43,200 (the top 40%) pay 99.1% of all income taxes, the taxes that support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, for example, fund the federal portion of transportation, education, environmental and welfare spending.Those who made more than $87,300 in 2004, the top 10%, paid 70.8% of all income taxes, an increase from their share of 48.1% in 1979. Think about it. Ten percent pay seven out of every 10 dollars and their share of the burden is rising."
Ari Fleischer also observed with respect to just payroll taxes:
"Top earners, on the other hand, pay payroll taxes so their money can be redistributed to others. According to the CBO study, the top 20% of workers, those with incomes over $64,300, pay 44.2% of the payroll tax. … In return, when it's time to retire, lower-income workers typically receive more in Social Security benefits than they paid in, while the wealthy, who paid the most in taxes, simply can't live long enough to get back what they paid. For much of the middle class and the wealthy, Social Security isn't a retirement program -- it's another program that redistributes their income."
Where do you fall in these income ranges? If your family income is $43,700 or even $87,300 do you think you are "rich"? The Democrats think you are, or at least they say they think you are when they wish to criticize the "Bush tax cuts".
Of course, to hear the liberals, socialists and their allies in the news media; the "rich" i.e. the "fortunate 40%", are not paying enough. So if and when taxes are reduced there is a hue and cry that only the "rich" will benefit. It’s never explained that a tax reduction only applies to those really paying taxes.
All of which takes us to the delightfully named "Earned Income Tax Credit" (EITC). If you didn’t know better and took the title at face value, you would think this was a plan to extend a credit to those paying taxes; not so my dear.
The EITC program redistributes money from those who pay income taxes to 22 million families and individuals with incomes less than $36,348. These workers not only don't have to pay any income tax under current tax laws, they are given a government check as a gift from the other tax payers. Broad marginal income tax rate cuts and continual expansions of the earned income tax credit (EITC) for non tax payers has created a situation where fewer people are paying more and more of the income tax. When the lowest tax rate was cut to 10% from 15% by President Bush in 2001, several million additional people were excused from paying any income tax.
The Earned Income Tax Credit is couched so as to be described as a "tax credit" but it is a credit given to those that pay no taxes. In reality it is a tax-free grant of money to those that qualify, single individuals, single parents and parents with "qualifying children". A qualifying child can be under age 19 at the end of the tax year or under age 24 if classified as a full-time student for at least one long semester or equivalent.
It is also not necessary for someone to be a parent to be able to receive a "credit". Persons without qualifying child can also get the government handout as long as they are not claimed as a dependent by someone else. In this category the claimant must be over 24 years old.
Today, the EITC is one of the largest welfare programs in the United States.
I believe that it is appropriate to help people in need under some circumstances. But why can’t congress call a shovel a shovel; are they worried they won’t be able to sell it to the 99% of workers who will foot the bill? By the way, if one doesn‘t pay any taxes, what is the "earned income tax" against which the "credit" is applied?
Saturday, April 5, 2008
The cure is worse than the disease
Years ago during the phony oil shortage motorists waited in line to buy gasoline, sometimes for hours. All sorts of schemes were proposed including buying gasoline only in alternate days depending on your license plate number. With gasoline shortages and high prices, one not so funny joke circulated ridiculing the plight of those needing to use their cars for work and other necessary travel. The story goes that on one occasion a motorist pulled into a gas station complaining to the operator about the high price of gasoline at his station. The motorist said "How come your price is twice the price of the station down the street?" Without batting an eye the station attendant asked "Do they have any gas to sell?" The complaining motorist answered "No". Well said the attendant at the high priced gasoline station, "When I don’t have any gas to sell my price is also lower".
The bogus shortage of oil causing high gas prices at the pump and delays in getting it were a precursor to the difficulty getting health care where health insurance is mandated by states for everyone and an example of what we will face throughout the country if those trying to impose universal health insurance, euphemistically called "universal health care", on all of us succeed.
In Massachusetts, one of the first states to prescribe universal health insurance, one consequence of their universal coverage plan is that its citizens are finding it difficult to impossible to get to a doctor for routine medical needs and even when a visit to the doctor is more seriously needed. The law requiring everyone to have health insurance went into effect last year and since then about 340,000 of Massachusetts’ estimated 600,000 uninsured have received health care coverage; however the problem is that they are finding there is nowhere to get it. Even scheduling appointments has proven to be more difficult than buying gasoline in bygone days of universal gasoline shortages as many search in vain for doctors and to schedule appointments for long-deferred care.
In one recent example described by columnist Kevin Sack Amherst, the "next appointment" available for a physical examination was not until early May – in 2009; the medical profession version of "justice delayed is justice denied". Many doctors are not taking new patients or are being rushed to see many more patients in a day. Straining the time of a doctor visit also places patients at unnecessary additional medical risk. Writer Amherst reported:
"Dr. Patricia A. Sereno, state president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said an influx of the newly insured to her practice in Malden, just north of Boston, had stretched her daily caseload to as many as 22 to 25 patients, from 18 to 20 a year ago. To fit them in, Dr. Sereno limits the number of 45-minute physicals she schedules each day, thereby doubling the wait for an exam to three months." ‘It’s a recipe for disaster,’ Dr. Sereno said. ‘It’s great that people have access to health care, but now we’ve got to find a way to give them access to preventive services. The point of this legislation was not to get people episodic care.’"
For an aging population in Massachusetts and anywhere similar laws are enacted, the United States will need 40 percent more primary care doctors by 2020 to respond to universal health insurance mandates. With the reduction of government assistance to medical schools during the Clinton presidency to support Hillary Clinton’s failed universal health care proposals, the number of medical school graduates in the United States entering family medicine training programs, or residencies dropped to 24% in 2006 from 54% in 1998, according to the American College of Physicians. These changes place additional strains on medical care availability where universal health insurance is mandated. Even though the supply of doctors is being enhanced by foreign medical school graduates and osteopathic doctors, this is still not enough to fill the medical needs of the increased number of the newly medically insured.
Dr. Bruce Auerbach, the incoming president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, testified in congress recently, "It is a fundamental truth — which we are learning the hard way in Massachusetts — that comprehensive health care reform cannot work without appropriate access to primary care physicians and providers".
Despite warnings like this, Democrat legislators and Democrat presidential aspirants want to impose socialized medicine schemes of one sort or another on all of us. If they succeed, the "cure" will be worse than the disease.
The bogus shortage of oil causing high gas prices at the pump and delays in getting it were a precursor to the difficulty getting health care where health insurance is mandated by states for everyone and an example of what we will face throughout the country if those trying to impose universal health insurance, euphemistically called "universal health care", on all of us succeed.
In Massachusetts, one of the first states to prescribe universal health insurance, one consequence of their universal coverage plan is that its citizens are finding it difficult to impossible to get to a doctor for routine medical needs and even when a visit to the doctor is more seriously needed. The law requiring everyone to have health insurance went into effect last year and since then about 340,000 of Massachusetts’ estimated 600,000 uninsured have received health care coverage; however the problem is that they are finding there is nowhere to get it. Even scheduling appointments has proven to be more difficult than buying gasoline in bygone days of universal gasoline shortages as many search in vain for doctors and to schedule appointments for long-deferred care.
In one recent example described by columnist Kevin Sack Amherst, the "next appointment" available for a physical examination was not until early May – in 2009; the medical profession version of "justice delayed is justice denied". Many doctors are not taking new patients or are being rushed to see many more patients in a day. Straining the time of a doctor visit also places patients at unnecessary additional medical risk. Writer Amherst reported:
"Dr. Patricia A. Sereno, state president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said an influx of the newly insured to her practice in Malden, just north of Boston, had stretched her daily caseload to as many as 22 to 25 patients, from 18 to 20 a year ago. To fit them in, Dr. Sereno limits the number of 45-minute physicals she schedules each day, thereby doubling the wait for an exam to three months." ‘It’s a recipe for disaster,’ Dr. Sereno said. ‘It’s great that people have access to health care, but now we’ve got to find a way to give them access to preventive services. The point of this legislation was not to get people episodic care.’"
For an aging population in Massachusetts and anywhere similar laws are enacted, the United States will need 40 percent more primary care doctors by 2020 to respond to universal health insurance mandates. With the reduction of government assistance to medical schools during the Clinton presidency to support Hillary Clinton’s failed universal health care proposals, the number of medical school graduates in the United States entering family medicine training programs, or residencies dropped to 24% in 2006 from 54% in 1998, according to the American College of Physicians. These changes place additional strains on medical care availability where universal health insurance is mandated. Even though the supply of doctors is being enhanced by foreign medical school graduates and osteopathic doctors, this is still not enough to fill the medical needs of the increased number of the newly medically insured.
Dr. Bruce Auerbach, the incoming president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, testified in congress recently, "It is a fundamental truth — which we are learning the hard way in Massachusetts — that comprehensive health care reform cannot work without appropriate access to primary care physicians and providers".
Despite warnings like this, Democrat legislators and Democrat presidential aspirants want to impose socialized medicine schemes of one sort or another on all of us. If they succeed, the "cure" will be worse than the disease.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Will ethanol enthusiasts have to give up reading?
As more and more is written about ethanol global warming fanatics who think humans are warming the planet may, like the smoker who read so much about the bad effects of smoking he gave up reading, will do as their tobacco-addicted counterparts are want to do.
Corn prices have soared to $6.00 a bushel, an increase of over 30% in just the first four months of this year. The usual reason for high prices apply, demand exceeds the supply. Being businessmen, farmers have naturally switched much of their acreage to growing corn but though this has not stopped the pressure to drive up corn prices, it has had the effect of the rising prices of many, many other products purchased by families across the globe.
To show how astute experts are, Elaine Kub a grains analyst with DTN in Omaha, Nebraska, said “It’s a demand-driven market and we may not be planting enough acres to supply demand, so that adds to the bullishness of corn”. To that sage comment, I might say “duh?”
The only problem with planting still more corn is that it will exacerbate price increases of those products made from corn or otherwise relying on corn for food production, such as livestock whose principal diet is corn. Furthermore, even if all available acreage was devoted to corn production it still would not enable the country to produce all ethanol mandated by inane climate control laws enacted by federal and state governments for use in the transportation industry.
Record prices enjoyed by corn farmers, most of whom are huge agriculture conglomerates not mom and pop farmers, also result in record profits at the expense of higher grocery bills. Livestock producers pass along higher animal feed costs to consumers so those buying beef and pork will find summer barbeques will be more expensive.
But the “trickle up” result of high corn prices does not stop at protein in our diet; it will also affect our collective “sweet tooth”. Corn syrup is used in everything from candy to soft drinks.
So what is the plus side of the ethanol craze; absolutely nothing. It has been established that ethanol is far less efficient as a vehicle fuel than gasoline or diesel and ethanol would not be commercially viable as a partial replacement for gasoline usage without the government subsidy of over $0.50 per gallon. Even so it is reported that current price of ethanol is above $2.50 per gallon.
There are an estimated 147 ethanol plants in the country having a capacity to produce about 8.5 billion gallons a year. Motor fuel requirements are over 150 billion gallons a year and if all gas stations sold “E-85” (a fuel blend with 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) we would need over 127.5 billion gallons of ethanol to fuel vehicles in this country; imagine if you can how this would affect food prices around the world. Of course gas stations would all have to make E-85 available to motorists; right now, for example, there is only one station in southern California (in San Diego) that has E-85 available for fools that don’t mind damaging their vehicle engines to buy (using ethanol in engines not adapted to use such fuels causes severe engine damage).
It has been reported that 20% of last year’s crop of 13 billion bushels of corn was used in ethanol production and that in the year ending August, 2009, this amount will increase to 30% for ethanol production. Consumers in the United States will be able to track the increasing allotment of acreage to supply corn for ethanol by the increase in what they pay at the supermarkets to feed their families.
Corn prices have soared to $6.00 a bushel, an increase of over 30% in just the first four months of this year. The usual reason for high prices apply, demand exceeds the supply. Being businessmen, farmers have naturally switched much of their acreage to growing corn but though this has not stopped the pressure to drive up corn prices, it has had the effect of the rising prices of many, many other products purchased by families across the globe.
To show how astute experts are, Elaine Kub a grains analyst with DTN in Omaha, Nebraska, said “It’s a demand-driven market and we may not be planting enough acres to supply demand, so that adds to the bullishness of corn”. To that sage comment, I might say “duh?”
The only problem with planting still more corn is that it will exacerbate price increases of those products made from corn or otherwise relying on corn for food production, such as livestock whose principal diet is corn. Furthermore, even if all available acreage was devoted to corn production it still would not enable the country to produce all ethanol mandated by inane climate control laws enacted by federal and state governments for use in the transportation industry.
Record prices enjoyed by corn farmers, most of whom are huge agriculture conglomerates not mom and pop farmers, also result in record profits at the expense of higher grocery bills. Livestock producers pass along higher animal feed costs to consumers so those buying beef and pork will find summer barbeques will be more expensive.
But the “trickle up” result of high corn prices does not stop at protein in our diet; it will also affect our collective “sweet tooth”. Corn syrup is used in everything from candy to soft drinks.
So what is the plus side of the ethanol craze; absolutely nothing. It has been established that ethanol is far less efficient as a vehicle fuel than gasoline or diesel and ethanol would not be commercially viable as a partial replacement for gasoline usage without the government subsidy of over $0.50 per gallon. Even so it is reported that current price of ethanol is above $2.50 per gallon.
There are an estimated 147 ethanol plants in the country having a capacity to produce about 8.5 billion gallons a year. Motor fuel requirements are over 150 billion gallons a year and if all gas stations sold “E-85” (a fuel blend with 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) we would need over 127.5 billion gallons of ethanol to fuel vehicles in this country; imagine if you can how this would affect food prices around the world. Of course gas stations would all have to make E-85 available to motorists; right now, for example, there is only one station in southern California (in San Diego) that has E-85 available for fools that don’t mind damaging their vehicle engines to buy (using ethanol in engines not adapted to use such fuels causes severe engine damage).
It has been reported that 20% of last year’s crop of 13 billion bushels of corn was used in ethanol production and that in the year ending August, 2009, this amount will increase to 30% for ethanol production. Consumers in the United States will be able to track the increasing allotment of acreage to supply corn for ethanol by the increase in what they pay at the supermarkets to feed their families.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
“Have you noticed Democrat solutions to anything always involve spending more money and giving the government more control?”
Democrat presidential contenders both want change for the country; and this campaign mantra seems to be appealing to many Americans, at least during the primary season.
However on those few occasions when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama make even small attempts to explain their disingenuous claims to make the country better through the vague concept of change, it looks like anything they succeed in doing will be paid for by those among us that work for a living.
As the country strives to recover from a sluggish economy, both Clinton and Obama want to spend billions of dollars to "rescue" homeowners and the "jobless"; those we used to call the "unemployed". But Democrats can’t use that term now because it may remind people that our unemployment figures are actually quite low so it’s hard to justify spending still more money to support the sound bites and chase this impossible dream. Clinton said "a new job retraining program is needed", ignoring the billions of dollars already spent on repeated "job retraining" programs for the last several decades.
Clinton wants us to address job insecurity and said the government needed to take more responsibility for helping displaced workers. I’m sure if pressed Hillary can find some constitutional provision to support this additional authority to give the federal government.
"Our government is more focused on how you lost your job than how you can find a new one," Clinton said. "And while we have been rightly focused on trying to help people who are out of work, there's been too little thought and effort to help people gain new skills while they still have their existing jobs." Mrs. Clinton seems to have been in a different world for some years if she actually believes what she is saying, but then a Clinton never let facts stand in the way of assuring people he or she "feels their pain".
Although Hillary does not believe in preemptive military strike, that doesn’t apply to spending programs. She is promoting a "pre-emptive training initiative" to allow workers "concerned about potential threats to their jobs" to receive grants to help transition into other industries. Since few jobs are assured for life, apparently everyone could qualify for such a program.
Not to be outdone in proposed spending, Obama came up with more ways to revise the government into a more controlling behemoth than already exists. Obama laid out six different areas where he would strengthen regulations of the financial system. He said "outdated government regulations have fallen dangerously behind the realities of modern finance". Many of us were not aware that Obama was such an expert on governmental regulations or of finance.
"We do American business — and the American people — no favors when we turn a blind eye to excessive leverage and dangerous risks," Obama said. This is an interesting statement in view of his firm belief that it is necessary to help homeowners who themselves turned "a blind eye to excessive leverage and dangerous risks" when they imprudently took low interest variable interest loans to buy houses.
The economic setbacks of recent months, Obama argued, "show hardships long felt by middle class Americans had now spread everywhere". Then Obama issued some of his famous statements that sound good but mean nothing; among which are:
"Pain trickles up" (?).
"If we can extend a hand to banks on Wall Street, we can extend a hand to Americans who are struggling."
McCain’s plan for the economy "amounts to little more than watching this crisis happen."
Obama also said what he would do if he wins the presidency (to which we might say God help us). According to Obama the next president should:
"Expand oversight to any institution that borrows from the government."
"Toughen capital requirements for complex financial instruments like mortgage securities", and
"Streamline regulatory agencies to end overlap and competition among regulators."
Of course Obama did not detail how the different agencies should be organized or exactly how the government should go about overseeing bank executives, though it is likely he expects the Federal Reserve to assume a greater role than it has thus far in dictating bank activities. Also evidently ignored by his audience and the news media is the enormous expansion of government that would be required to extend such federal oversight over the private sector in order to implement these proposals.
As he did on the Letterman show recently, McCain had a good retort to the vague Democrat proposals: "There is a tendency for liberals to seek big government programs that sock it to American taxpayers while failing to solve the very real problems we face."
However on those few occasions when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama make even small attempts to explain their disingenuous claims to make the country better through the vague concept of change, it looks like anything they succeed in doing will be paid for by those among us that work for a living.
As the country strives to recover from a sluggish economy, both Clinton and Obama want to spend billions of dollars to "rescue" homeowners and the "jobless"; those we used to call the "unemployed". But Democrats can’t use that term now because it may remind people that our unemployment figures are actually quite low so it’s hard to justify spending still more money to support the sound bites and chase this impossible dream. Clinton said "a new job retraining program is needed", ignoring the billions of dollars already spent on repeated "job retraining" programs for the last several decades.
Clinton wants us to address job insecurity and said the government needed to take more responsibility for helping displaced workers. I’m sure if pressed Hillary can find some constitutional provision to support this additional authority to give the federal government.
"Our government is more focused on how you lost your job than how you can find a new one," Clinton said. "And while we have been rightly focused on trying to help people who are out of work, there's been too little thought and effort to help people gain new skills while they still have their existing jobs." Mrs. Clinton seems to have been in a different world for some years if she actually believes what she is saying, but then a Clinton never let facts stand in the way of assuring people he or she "feels their pain".
Although Hillary does not believe in preemptive military strike, that doesn’t apply to spending programs. She is promoting a "pre-emptive training initiative" to allow workers "concerned about potential threats to their jobs" to receive grants to help transition into other industries. Since few jobs are assured for life, apparently everyone could qualify for such a program.
Not to be outdone in proposed spending, Obama came up with more ways to revise the government into a more controlling behemoth than already exists. Obama laid out six different areas where he would strengthen regulations of the financial system. He said "outdated government regulations have fallen dangerously behind the realities of modern finance". Many of us were not aware that Obama was such an expert on governmental regulations or of finance.
"We do American business — and the American people — no favors when we turn a blind eye to excessive leverage and dangerous risks," Obama said. This is an interesting statement in view of his firm belief that it is necessary to help homeowners who themselves turned "a blind eye to excessive leverage and dangerous risks" when they imprudently took low interest variable interest loans to buy houses.
The economic setbacks of recent months, Obama argued, "show hardships long felt by middle class Americans had now spread everywhere". Then Obama issued some of his famous statements that sound good but mean nothing; among which are:
"Pain trickles up" (?).
"If we can extend a hand to banks on Wall Street, we can extend a hand to Americans who are struggling."
McCain’s plan for the economy "amounts to little more than watching this crisis happen."
Obama also said what he would do if he wins the presidency (to which we might say God help us). According to Obama the next president should:
"Expand oversight to any institution that borrows from the government."
"Toughen capital requirements for complex financial instruments like mortgage securities", and
"Streamline regulatory agencies to end overlap and competition among regulators."
Of course Obama did not detail how the different agencies should be organized or exactly how the government should go about overseeing bank executives, though it is likely he expects the Federal Reserve to assume a greater role than it has thus far in dictating bank activities. Also evidently ignored by his audience and the news media is the enormous expansion of government that would be required to extend such federal oversight over the private sector in order to implement these proposals.
As he did on the Letterman show recently, McCain had a good retort to the vague Democrat proposals: "There is a tendency for liberals to seek big government programs that sock it to American taxpayers while failing to solve the very real problems we face."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
