American Daughter - Multimedia journalism with articles,pictures and graphics, podcast audio and video,slide presentations, live-blogging of events, and webcasting
California Chronicle - Published daily The California Chronicle brings you the top news and commentary of the day throughout the Central Coast, the State and the Nation.
Real Clear Politics - One of America’s premier independent political web sites. Updated every morning and throughout the day, RCP culls and publishes the best commentary, news, polling data, and links to important resources from all points of the political compass and coveri
TownHall - Townhall.com is designed to amplify conservative voices in America’s political debates just as the 2006 and 2008 election cycles begin to heat up.
Working Senior - The National Association of Working Seniors
Hardly a day goes by that I don’t find myself outraged by someone or something. It has almost become a ritual for me, watching the news, reading the newspapers and countless articles and editorials that are beamed our way via the Internet. It’s inescapable.
The latest outrage to catch my attention is a story told by Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, about the type of education we Californians are paying for with our tax dollars. Here’s how he describes the situation in his weekly “California Commentary”:
“Imagine walking though a California public school and hearing the voices of students of students singing ‘I am special’ to the tune of ‘Frere Jacques.’ One might look through the classroom window expecting to see kindergartners about to enjoy Graham crackers and milk – or perhaps a more politically correct snack…Now back to real life, where singing choruses of self-affirming music, such as ‘I Am Special’ is part of the curriculum in a college course called ‘Self Esteem’ taught at CSU Fresno…Students preferring to attend UCLA can enroll in a class on electronic dance music that explores ‘the political and cultural implications of the relentless hedonism of the dance floor.’ And at UC Berkeley, they can take a course entitled, ‘Sex Change City: Theorizing History in a Genderqueer San Francisco’ where they learn aall about the ‘regulation of gender-variant practices in public space by San Francisco’s Anglo-European elites.”
As Mr. Coupal notes, “These are just examples of real college courses funded with real tax dollars.”
Another outrage that recently came to my attention via a media website is a story headlined, “NASA chief: Next Frontier Better Relations With Muslim World.” The article noted that the NASA Administrator, Charles Bolden, in an interview with Al Jazeera, said: “When I became the NASA administrator – he (Obama) charged me with three things. One was to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science…and math and engineering.”
Since when is it the mission of the U.S. Space Agency to help make Muslims “feel good?”
Another aspect of the NASA outrage to me is Obama’s failure to reauthorize the Space Shuttle after the current program ends and his declared intention to cancel the Constellation program (space exploration), which will make us dependent on other countries, such as Russia, to carry our astronauts into space. It’s outrageous to me that it has become the policy of this country to become dependent on our enemies for key elements of our defense capability.
Stephen Frank’s California Political News and Views reported the following outrageous story with the headline: “Feds Spend $550,496 Studying Sex Lives of Truckers.” The article continues: “Is it any of your business to know the sex lives of truck drivers? Would it even matter?…’The federal government has spent $550,496 on a project that involved conducting focus groups and in-depth interviews with American long-haul truck drivers to learn about their sex lives in order to assess their risk of contracting HIV or other sexually transmitted infections. The project has failed to find any instances of HIV among the truck drivers studied’…Actually, this could have been done for about $10 — all the Feds had to do is check the records of the Center for the Study of Diseases in Atlanta, which keeps such records.”
Is this outrageous enough for you?
Finally, the steady stream of coverage of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has continuously demanded our attention with an endless parade of bad news. Since April 20, when the well blew, we have been subjected to 24/7 media coverage with a daily count of the number of days it has been since the incident occurred, how long Obama waited to become actively involved, blow-by-blow reportage of the efforts to cap the well, the callousness of BP executives, the plight of the people who live in the region, who will pay for the residents’ loss of income and the cost of cleaning up, and anything else anyone in the administration or the media thought was of interest. Regardless of who may be at fault or why it happened, the over-the-top reporting continues to be just another daily outrage.
Some people will probably say that I’m just a news junkie and that I should join “Outraged Daily Anonymous” (ODA) or some other self-help group to learn how to deal with my compulsion for news and information. Perhaps so, but unfortunately, as I commented earlier, being outraged by the news is inescapable.
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) produces an annual summary of pork-barrel spending that is aptly named the Congressional Pig Book. This year, CAGW’s 2010 Congressional Pig Book Summary highlights the usual litany of Congressional misuse of government funds that have been appropriated by various members of Congress for the benefit of a wide variety of individuals and causes. These appropriations are generally attached to other bills as they make their way through the approval process and rarely see the light of day or are subjected to any sort of critical analysis in a sort of wink, wink, unwritten agreement that “if you vote for my bill, I will vote for yours.” Pretty much everyone goes along to get along, while the public is kept in the dark, unless of course, they happen to be a beneficiary of a particular piece of pork barrel legislation.
CAGW’s Spring 2010 newsletter notes that in 1991, the year of their first Pig Book, there were 546 projects with a total value of $3.2 billion. The numbers this year are 9,129 projects with a total cost of $16.5 billion. Not surprisingly, as the federal budget has grown, so have the number and total cost of earmarks.
This year, to qualify for inclusion in the Pig Book, a project had to meet at least one of the following seven criteria - most satisfied at least two:
-Requested by only one chamber of Congress
-Not specifically authorized
-Not competitively awarded
-Not requested by the President
-Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or previous year’s funding
-Not the subject of Congressional hearings
-Serves only a local or special interest.
The “pork barrel” appropriations included in the 2010 Pig Book were grouped in the following categories:
I. Agriculture: 475 projects, total $396.5 million..
II. Commerce, Justice, Science: 1,510 projects, total $714.4 million.
III. Defense: 1,752 projects, total $10.3 billion.
IV. Energy and Water: 939 projects, total $1.2 billion.
V. Financial Services: 260 projects, total $65 million.
VI. Homeland Security: 173 projects, total $242.8 million.
VII. Interior: 548 projects, total $361.1 million.
VIII. Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education: 1,789 projects, total $813.8 million.
IX. Legislative Branch: only one earmark was requested, total $200,000. (Note: The lone
earmark was attached to the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, which includes increases
for staff salaries, money for parties for dignitaries, and $500,000 for a “pilot program” to
send postcards to their constituents about town meetings.
X. Military Construction: 182 projects, total $1.1 billion.
XI. State and Foreign Operations: 7 earmarks, total $209.4 million.
XII. Transportation/Housing and Urban Development (HUD): 1,483 earmarks, total $1.2 billion.
Last year the Obama administration and Congress added $1.4 trillion to the national debt, more than the total deficit of the prior four years, and U.S. Senator George LeMieux (R-Fla) noted, “Unless Washington’s lawmakers reverse course on spending, our deficits will continue to rise and our nation’s debt will suffocate prosperity…In the last fiscal year alone, Congress gave the State Department a 32 percent increase, the Environmental Protection Agency a 35 percent increase, and most all other federal departments and agencies saw increases well above inflation…The current earmark process is the engine that drives the train. Earmarks have become the tools used to build support for the annual appropriations bills that fund the basic functions of our government. Distracting attention from oversight, members often become focused on how much money they are able to get for their district or state.”
Although this year’s earmarks are a relatively small portion of the total federal budget ($16.5 billion vs over $1.4 trillion), they are symptomatic of what’s wrong with the way our government and the people who run it operate. It’s always about getting more money to spend, never less, and the method of budgeting Congress uses is deliberately designed to produce bigger budgets year after year, forever. Federal budgets are developed using a method that is described as “traditional incremental budgeting,” with departmental managers having to justify only increases over the previous year’s budget, and what has been already spent is automatically approved.
The system is rigged to always provide bigger budgets, never smaller, and no one ever spends less than their budget allows for fear that, if they do, their budget for the next year will be reduced by the amount they don’t use. Unless and until we wake up and change the way we do things, earmarks and spending will continue to grow until we simply go broke, which many people believe will be in the foreseeable future.. At that point, budgets and earmarks won’t matter, because there simply won’t be any money available to spend.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is backing an idea that has been advanced by California state assemblyman Mike Davis - to turn Michael Jackson’s Neverland property into a state park.
The list of reasons why this is a bad idea starts with the fact that there is no money in the state’s coffers for an expenditure of the magnitude that would be involved to accomplish this, assuming it could be done at all. But, there are plenty of other reasons, not the least of which is the location of the property in Santa Ynez Valley.
The entrance to Neverland is on a narrow country road that cannot possibly handle the volume of traffic that would be attracted to the site. The gates are gone, as is just about everything else that Michael Jackson built or housed on the property: The Ferris wheel, bumper cars and amusement park rides, steam engines that ran on a rail line around the grounds, animals in his personal zoo (elephants, orangutans, tigers, snakes, giraffes, etc.), wax figures of Michael, his personal crown and portraits of him dressed as a king, life-sized toys of superheroes and villains, Star Wars and Walt Disney characters, life-sized statues of Elvis Presley, Bruce Lee, Marilyn Monroe and others. In short, everything that made the place the attraction that it was. And, of course, the house and theater are reported to be in an extreme state of disrepair.
The cost to restore this 2,600 plus acre property to the condition it was in when Jackson lived there would be astronomical, assuming it could be done at all. Start with the fact that it is now owned by Sycamore Valley Ranch, Inc, a real estate company in which the Jackson estate is reported to still have an interest together with Colony Capital LLC, an investment company run by billionaire Tom Barrack. It’s hard to see how the property could be acquired by the California State Parks Commission without a substantial outlay of cash that the state just doesn’t have.
Another consideration is the traffic that a Neverland Park would generate. Think about this: Graceland has about 600,000 visitors a year, more than any other comparable attraction in the country except the White House. Given Michael Jackson’s popularity, my guess is that the number of visitors to Neverland would be far greater than Graceland.
But, assuming, for the sake of discussion, that a Neverland Park would attract the same number of visitors as Graceland, how would that impact SY Valley?
For starters, on average, there would be 50,000 visitors a month, or a daily average of almost 1,700 people. Since the entrance to Neverland is on a narrow country road, visitors would probably have to be bussed in, which would amount to about 275 buses a day.
However, chances are most visitors would travel to the SY Valley by auto and, assuming four people per car, that would mean off-site parking would be required for over well over 400 cars a day. Fewer passengers would mean more cars, perhaps as many as 600 or 700.
Given the rural nature of the surrounding area, just where could such a large number of cars be parked? Certainly not in the nearby unincorporated hamlet of Los Olivos. If you think there has been a hullabaloo about traffic and parking at the Chumash Casino, you can just imagine how residents in the area would react to having a Neverland Park in the Valley..
Parking could, of course, be provided somewhere on the Neverland property, but that would mean a steady stream of two-way traffic on a narrow country road that exits on Highway 154, with 55 mph cross-traffic, where there are already serious accidents fairly often. Furthermore, there is little or nothing that could be done to alleviate the impact of so many cars on the residents who live on the access road to Neverland.
Other problems that such a massive influx of visitors to the Valley would surely create include the increased demands that would be imposed on the SB County Sheriff’s Department for full-time policing, along with county road repair and maintenance, and environmental concerns.
If you agree that this is a really bad idea, I suggest you write or email the state Parks Commission and let them know. You can email them at info@parks.ca.gov or email state Assemblyman Mike Davis at www.assembly.ca.gov/davis. And, it probably wouldn’t hurt to email the president of the NAACP, Benjamin T. Jealous, at washingtonbureau@naacpnet.org
I suggest we all speak up before this really dumb idea gets any traction. I’m emailing this column to them today.
July 4th is the date that Americans celebrate the occasion of our nation gaining its independence from England. Unfortunately, not everyone sees it quite that way. That is, it appears that there are many Hispanics who think July 4th is also the date when Mexicans celebrate their own independence.
I must admit that I was more than a little troubled, annoyed is probably a better word, at the sight of a Mexican flag being carried in Solvang’s Independence Day parade on July 4th. Not just being carried in the parade, but carried alongside the American flag, at the same height, which is a clear violation of the U.S. flag protocol. A number of people in the community have made the same observation to me, so it’s clear that I am not alone.
There seems to be a general attitude on the part of many Hispanics that displaying Mexico’s flag is or should be of equal importance in America as our own traditions, but they are wrong. Mexico has its own independence day, actually two dates when they celebrate their own freedom, from both Spanish and French dominance, specifically on September 16 and May 5 respectively.
So, why do people display the Mexican flag at America’s July 4 Independence Day celebrations?
I don’t profess to have the answer, but I can tell you that, to me and many other Americans I know, it looks as though there are many Mexicans, regardless of their status as residents in this country, that is, legal or illegal, who are declaring their allegiance to Mexico. If so, they should go back. If not, they should be willing to become part of the traditional cultural and social traditions of becoming Americans first, regardless of their own ethnic and/or national heritage. Becoming or being “American” does not mean turning your back on your own heritage, but it does mean you owe your primary allegiance to America.
Americans are, or should be, Americans first. A major percentage of the 300 million people in this country are not very far removed from their own family members who were immigrants themselves. In my case, I am only a second generation American. Both my paternal and maternal grandparents were from Russia. This is the case with many people I know, that is, they are not very far removed from the land of their forbearers. It may sound simplistic to some people, I suppose, but I certainly have no desire to carry or see a Russian flag in an Independence Day parade.
In addition, we don’t see anyone carrying an Irish flag in our July 4th parades, or Polish or German or French flags, or flags of any other nation. So, why do some people want to display a Mexican flag?
The answer or answers no doubt vary, but whatever the reason, I find it offensive, and many people I know feel the same way, including some Mexican-Americans.
On previous Independence Days we have seen thousands of Mexicans marching in the streets of Los Angeles carrying the Mexican flag above the U.S. flag. One year, a group of students from Lompoc High School attempted to march on the city’s main commercial street carrying the Mexican flag above that of the U.S., but the local police quickly sent them back to school.
Furthermore, in some instances the U.S. flag was turned upside down, which is the generally accepted sign of distress. It was an extremely offensive display of Mexican nationalism and one that I will not easily forget.
So, returning to the display of the Mexican flag in this year’s Independence Day parade in Solvang, what’s your own reaction? Is it much ado about nothing or is it reason for offense?
Thirty plus years ago, in 1978, California state senator H.L. (Bill) Richardson) wrote a small book with the intriguing title, “What Makes You Think We Read The Bills?” in which he describes how politicians are actually elected by a very small percentage of the voters in their district, about one or two percent, and as a result, officeholders really listen only to that small constituency. The title of Senator Richardson’s book also aptly describes the way the U.S. Congress functions today in writing and voting on new legislation.
The surge of bills that have been disgorged by Congress since Obama was elected further illustrates Richardson’s thesis, as a succession of major new laws have been approved without being read by most of the legislators who voted on them.
Legislation that moves through Congress without any legislative language is called a “vapor bill.” The term was derived from the word Vaporware, an expression coined during the dot-com era to describe all-singing-all-dancing software that had not yet been written.
A recent example of a “vapor bill” is the Senate’s 2,000 plus page Health Care Reform act, which had no legislative language and was amended in the Senate Finance Committee, where none of the committee members had read the actual bill. At the time, the Washington Post reported that “President Barack Obama’s push for a sweeping health care overhaul is going to be voted upon in the Senate Finance Committee…and nobody has read the actual bill yet.” The Washington Post also headlined, “Senate Finance Committee Releases Its Final Text of Health-Care Bill,” but if you clicked on a link to the “Bill” that was referenced in the Post article, all you got was a 262 page description of the legislation…no actual legislative language (was) being given to Senators, Staff or the American Public.”
Aside from the obvious inappropriateness of having legislators vote on bills they have not read, one of the most significant problems with vapor bills is that the Congressional Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can’t “score” the legislation, that is, estimate what such bills are likely to cost. The fiscal impact of any bill cannot be evaluated without the actual legislative language, and the health care bill that was approved by Congress was over 2,000 pages of what was essentially nothing more than an outline of the proposed law.
Vapor bills are not submitted to Congress by accident. They have actually been a key element of the current Democratic Leadership’s strategy, which has been to put incomplete proposed legislation before the members of Congress without having to disclose the details, which made it possible for just a few insiders to write the actual language of the bill behind closed doors.
Having successfully shepherded the president’s health care law through Congress with a vapor bill, the Democratic leadership continued this strategy for other major legislation, such as the A.I.G. Insurance Bonus Bill and more recently the new Banking and Finance legislation. Lawmakers were also given just hours to examine the $789 billion stimulus plan, sweeping climate-change legislation and a multi-billion dollar bailout package before final votes were taken.
For example, the stimulus bill was 1,100 pages long and made available to Congress and the public just 13 hours before lawmakers voted on it. The bill failed to provide the promised help to the job market, and there was outrage when it was discovered that the legislation included an amendment allowing American International Group, a bailout recipient, to give out millions in employee bonuses.
Four major pieces of legislation have been passed by Congress using the same procedure:
House Energy and Global Warming Bill: passed June 26, 2009, 1,200 pages. Available online just 15 hours before vote.
$789 billion stimulus bill, passed June 26, 2009, 1,100 pages. Available online just 13 hours before debate.
$700 billion financial service sector rescue package, 169 pages, passed October 3, 2008. Available online just 29 hours before vote.
USA Patriot domestic surveillance bill, passed October 23, 2001. Not available to the public before debate.
The Sunlight Foundation, which lobbies Congress to bring more transparency to government, has begun attempting to get Congress to post bills online, for everyone to see 72 hours before lawmakers vote on them. Lisa Rosenberg has noted that “It would give the public a chance to really digest and understand what is in the bill and communicate whether that is a good or a bad thing while there is still time to fix it.”
Good suggestion, but as the oft-quoted saying advises: “Don’t hold your breath.”
Hardly a day goes by that we don’t learn something new about the negative impacts that Obama’s health care plan is having or holds in store for the sick and elderly in America.
Speaking to the American Medical Association in Chicago on June 15, 2009, Barack Obama made the following statement: “So let me begin by saying that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage – they like their plan and they value their relationship with their doctor. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broke and build on what works.”
So, what happened on the way to implementing Obamacare?
For one thing, we certainly did not get a health care plan that is acceptable to the American people. Rasmussen reports that 58% of the public want the president’s health care plan repealed.
So, did we simply lose our way? Was it deliberate, a part of the plan all along? Or, was it just legislative overkill that most legislators didn’t expect or foresee? Or, all of the above?
Whatever the case, each new step in the process of implementing Obamacaare exposes more information about the unanticipated or unintended consequences of the president’s health care plan. And, they aren’t good.
For example, a recent AP (Associated Press) headlined, “Senate fails to spare doctors from Medicare cuts,” reported that, although the Senate passed legislation to avoid a 21% cut in Medicare payments to doctors, their action was too late to prevent Medicare from implementing fee reductions for the month of June because the House was unable to act on the bill in time. The president of the American Medical Association said, “This is no way to run a major health coverage program.”
But, this situation was just the tip of the iceberg. Offering further insight to the potential disaster that is now unfolding in America’s health care system, a blogger, Joseph Scherzer, M.D., recently noted: “There is hardly a week that goes by without some new concern or demand, none of which have to do with learning about Medicine. We are caught up in a torrential whirlwind of bureaucratic regulations admixed with a flood of threats.”
Dr. Scherzer further commented: “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention!”, warning: “Because of government meddling in the practice of medicine and unreasonable, excessive rules, regulations and reimbursement that does not keep up with the actual cost of living, doctors nationwide are already decreasing the number of new Medicare patients they will take. Eventually, all across the country, and already in some states, there will not be enough doctors for all the baby boomers. I predict that because of the expected severe shortage of Medicare providers under Obamacare, our intrusive government will then force the doctors they are abusing to take on new Medicare patients or risk horrific fines if they refuse. And, with the appalling fines discussed below, consider how many physicians are just going to say “to hell with it” and throw in the towel and shut their doors so they won’t have to put up with government’s new socialist, terror tactics. Not only are the president and the Dems bankrupting the country and scaring off doctors, they are ensuring rationing of health care to seniors. Can you imagine what healthcare will be like for seniors in 10 years after Obamacare destroys the best health care system in the world?”
Some of the fines that Dr. Scherzer refers to range from $11,000 to $50,000 for such transgressions as making an error in Medicare billings, noting also that the government’s burden of proof is very light. In addition, the definition of “fraud” has been expanded to include “unnecessary” or “ineffective” services, or services that don’t “comply with Medicare requirements.”
Having run a hospital, I can tell you from firsthand experience that dealing with the bureaucratic overkill of Medicare and other government agencies can be enough to make many doctors decide to quit.
Put yourself in the position of your doctor, who must now practice medicine under the continuous threat of financial ruin for such simple mistakes as billing errors. Keep in mind that doctors do not actually do the billing themselves. It’s done by office staff.
The cumulative effect of all this regulation and financial risk can only result in increasing numbers of doctors giving up the practice of medicine.
Don’t be surprised if you call for an appointment to see your doctor one of these days, only to learn that he or she has retired or otherwise given up the practice of medicine.
You can count on it. And, who will be there to look after you?
During the course of the debate over the Obama administration’s health care initiative, from any perspective, that is, Republicans vs Democrats, Liberal vs Conservative, legislators vs the health care industry, pretty much everyone has used extreme hyperbole, innuendo and downright misinformation in their efforts to sway public opinion.
As the health care bill was being negotiated by members of Congress behind closed doors, accusations regarding the content of the proposed legislation captured the daily headlines, but perhaps no aspect of the debate has been more egregiously misrepresented than the role of the medical profession.
For the record, my bonfides to weigh in with an opinion about this include almost seven years as the CEO of a small hospital in the community where I live.
Doctors, in particular, have been characterized as greedy, grasping and uncaring, ready to enrich themselves at the expense of patients and the government in any way possible. The obvious purpose was to sway public opinion in support of Obama’s health care proposal.
Quoting Obama in a speech he gave during his campaign for the presidency, Tom Blumer noted in his blog (August 13, 2009): “So we are going to be taking steps, as part of reform, to deal with expanding primary care physicians and our nursing corps. On the doctors’ front, one of the things we can do is to reimburse doctors who are providing preventive care and not just the surgeon who provides care after somebody is sick…All I’m saying is let’s take the example of something like diabetes, one of — a disease that’s skyrocketing…Right now…if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they’re taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that’s $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 — immediately the surgeon is reimbursed. Well, why not make sure that we’re also reimbursing the care that prevents the amputation, right? That will save us money.”
Blumer also reported the response of one surgeon, who said: “…in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service…Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do…”
Such statements are not just unfair, they also graphically illustrate the glaring ignorance of most politicians about health care and, in this instance, specifically Obama. The idea that doctors are overpaid for the services they provide to the patients of such programs as Medicare and Medicaid (MediCal in California) is ludicrous.
In California, services to MediCal (Medicaid) patients are so grossly underpaid that most doctors no longer accept them. The last time I checked, other than the local Indian Clinic, not one doctor in the community where I live would accept them as regular patients.
Two specific examples of MediCal’s gross underpayment for services that occurred when I was running the local hospital illustrate the point: One was a general surgeon who was called in by our hospital’s emergency room (ER) for a consultation one night and billed just $50 for his service. After an extremely long delay, he received a check for only 10 cents. Thinking there had to be some mistake, he contacted MediCal and was informed that 10 cents was all his service was worth, meaning it was all they could pay. In another similar incident, a neurologist was paid just 17 cents by MediCal for an ER consultation.
In March 17, 2010 article, the Seattle Times reported that: “…Walgreens drugstores, “which operates 121 stores in the state, “won’t take any new Medicaid patients” because they are reimbursed at “less than the break-even point for 95 percent of brand-name medications.” Walgreens is the third drug store chain in the state to stop filling prescriptions for new Medicaid customers.
During the run up to the passing of Obama’s health care plan, Dick Morris noted that physicians’ fees will be slashed by 21 percent, which will add impetus to the trend of doctors who are planning to retire early because they are no longer willing to passively accept what the government decides to pay them.
Since the government determines, in its sole discretion, how much doctors and hospitals are paid for services to Medicare and Medicaid patients, the inescapable result is that health care providers invariably end up being underpaid.
By Harris R. Sherline on June 27, 2010 at 11:06 am
Dear Abby had a favorite expression that she often used: MYOB, which means Mind Your Own Business. She would give this advice to people who wrote letters that were critical of the conduct of others, particularly their relatives, friends and neighbors. Abby was invariably quite specific: MYOB (butt out).
There is a long list of self-righteous, self-serving of politicians and government officials who have been presuming to tell Arizona that their legislature’s response to being overrun with illegal aliens (immigrants) is wrong - by passing legislation (their Senate bill No. 1070) which essentially mirrors the federal laws against illegally entering the United States.
A partial list of communities that have already condemned and/or are boycotting Arizona includes the following cities:
California: Coachella, Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Barbara and West Hollywood.
Colorado: Boulder
Connecticut: Hartford
Massachusetts: Boston
Minnesota: St. Paul
New York: N.Y. City
Ohio: Columbus
Texas: Austin, Brownsville, and El Paso.
Washington: Seattle
Washington, D.C.
Wisconsin: Milwaukee
In addition, California’s state Senate is considering a resolution that would urge a boycott of Arizona and an end to California public entities investing in or doing business in the “Grand Canyon State.”
The city of Baltimore has joined San Francisco, Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Seattle in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in support of a lawsuit by “activists” who are asking a federal court in Arizona to declare the state’s Senate Bill 1070 unconstitutional, while the federal government is reportedly preparing to enter the fray with a similar lawsuit by the Department of Justice.
Furthermore, some communities have either declared themselves to be “sanctuary cities” or are considering such action. In Santa Barbara, CA, a group is reportedly planning to engage in civil disobedience in an effort to force the city council to stop doing business with all Arizona based companies and to declare Santa Barbara to be a “sanctuary city.”
Sanctuary cities have adopted policies that protect illegal immigrants, generally by not allowing municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws and prohibiting local police or municipal employees from inquiring about anyone’s immigration status. In 1979, Los Angeles was the first city to adopt such a policy, and 31 municipalities are currently considered Sanctuary Cities.
Through all the turmoil, Arizonans have remained steadfast, with some 70% of the state’s residents supporting their new law.
But, the argument isn’t one-sided. Legislators in as many as 18 states are reportedly discussing adopting an immigration law similar to Arizona’s. Bills have already been introduced in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Minnesota, South Carolina and Michigan, although none of them will be acted on this year. Their reasoning was expressed by Idaho state Senator Monty Pearce, who said: “if the feds won’t do it, we’re going to have to do it.”
As is so often the case, this is more about politics than right and wrong. Politicians, who are always trolling for votes, are making pronouncements that they believe makes them look good in the eyes of voters, especially in California, which is reported to have the largest number of illegal immigrants in the country. To me, their political posturing just looks like more of the self-righteous, hypocritical moralizing we have come to expect from so many elected officials.
Perhaps the most graphic illustration of this is statement by a member of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors, Peggy West, who takes pride in being the first Latino/Hispanic American elected to the Milwaukee County Board, and who thinks Arizona is not on the border with Mexico. West stated that she would have to look twice at the Arizona law if it was like Texas, “which is a state that is directly on the border with Mexico…”
I don’t presume to know whether Arizona’s law is unconstitutional or not, although my sense is that it is not. However, what is of much greater concern to me is the widespread involvement by so many city councils, boards of supervisors and other legislative bodies, including California’s state Assembly, many of whose members are using their positions to further politicize a situation that is clearly outside their jurisdiction. What on earth does Arizona’s new immigration law have to do with managing the affairs of other communities that are not directly affected?
For my money, all those politicians who are not directly involved in Arizona’s situation should, as Dear Abby used to say, MYOB, and stop wasting taxpayers’ time and money on an issue that is clearly outside their jurisdiction.
We are at war, and pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan will not end it, not now, not in six months or a year, not in two years and, chances are, not for a generation or longer. As a matter of fact, bringing our troops home from those fronts will very likely create a vacuum that al Qaida, the Taliban and their fellow travelers will be able to fill with others who want to destroy America, and provide them with a base of operations and training sites.
After almost 10 years, most Americans seem to have lost sight of the reality that we are still under attack and will continue to be the target of an enemy that is driven by a religious fervor that, for Muslims, is based on a belief that dying in the service of their cause, which is to kill Infidels and offers them a greater reward than the benefits of living.
Americans are an impatient lot and are generally unwilling to wait for long periods of time to reach their goals. In this instance, it’s winning a war. We are now being reminded that the war in Afghanistan has already been of longer duration that WWII. The implication of this observation seems to be that if we leave it will end. The same applies to Iraq and the Middle East, where Iran is stirring up trouble for Iraq, Israel, the U.S. and our allies, with the avowed goal of destroying Israel and driving the Jews into the sea.
There seems to be the general belief that, if we leave, we can just return home where we will be safe. Unfortunately, the oceans no longer provide a buffer that protects America from its enemies.
So, the question arises, just who are we fighting and why? Looking at the situation from a broad perspective, there seems to be little doubt that we are at war, and that the enemy is willing to employ a strategy of killing, maiming and torturing not only civilians in general but fellow Muslims to win.
Furthermore, the war appears to be based on religious dogma and a core belief that an essential part of its mission is to either convert all other religious believers and non-believers to Islam and to either kill or subjugate those who will not submit.
Without question, we are at war, and it has been referred to as the “War on Terror” since 9/11. We’ve heard a variety of explanations that try to define it by referring to a particular enemy or enemies, such as al Qaida, The Taliban, Iran, Iraq (under Saddam Hussein), Jihadists, as well as various lesser radical groups and individuals.
However, because the “War on Terror” is not being waged on the basis of national interests and/or boundaries, it has been difficult to characterize.
When the World Trade Towers were attacked on 9/11, it seemed very clear to most Americans that we had become engaged in a major war, albeit one that might end quickly, particularly after the Taliban regime in Afghanistan fell so quickly following the U.S. attack.
The notion of a short war was reinforced by the attack on Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, which was accomplished in a few days. These two quick victories made it appear that the war would end in short order and that Americans would be able to return to their daily lives as if nothing had happened.
So, what happened on the way to the easy victories on two fronts? For one thing, the enemy organized. They also prepared for a very long conflict, generations, if necessary.
As time passed, it eventually became clear to many Americans that we were involved in a major war, one that would last for many years, perhaps a generation or longer, and that, like it or not, we are being forced to deal with the enemy’s key strategy, which is terrorism.
Reality set it. The war turned out to be tougher than most Americans anticipated, and we are now required to deal with that actuality. We must come to grips with the fact that it is going to last much longer than most of us thought or would like, and giving it some amorphous name won’t change the nature of the battle. It is, in fact, a “War on Terror.”
Changing the label doesn’t change the facts. So, let’s face reality, call it what it is, the “War on Terror,” and learn to live with it.
The evidence is in and is irrefutable. The BP oil drilling catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico is the fault of America’s anti-drilling crowd, including president Obama, who has seized on what he perceives as just another opportunity to push his “Cap and Trade” proposal. With Obama, it’s always about politics and the “change” he promised to bring to America, most of which the American public has rejected.
After essentially ignoring the oil spill for 57 days, Obama finally took to the air waves on June 15. Speaking to the nation from the Oval Office he attempted to assure us that he had the situation under control and that he is in charge. In his effort to convince the public that he was actively dealing with the problem, Obama made his now infamous comment on the NBC Today Show, saying: “I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick.”
What a classy guy our president is. I don’t know about anyone else, but I was personally offended by his remark. Not because I don’t fault British Petroleum for this disaster, but because I just don’t think any of our political leaders should make public statements about major issues using street language. I believe it demeans both the office and the individual. The president of the United States is not and should not try to be just one of the guys.
But, talking tough or pushing BP into creating a $20 billion slush fund, presumably to cover the cost of cleaning up the oil mess, does not solve the long-term problem of risk in deepwater drilling. To solve that, Obama simply declared a moratorium on all such drilling, at least for now, as if that will accomplish anything except to make us more dependent on other countries, where many people hate us.
It will also drive up the cost of oil, gasoline and many other oil based products. Some sources are predicting that the price of gasoline may double, to $4.00 or $5.00 a gallon. The impact of an increase of this magnitude will affect everything from food to power, manufacturing and transportation, all of which will force most people to reorder their budgets for such basics as heating and air conditioning, their personal use of power, driving to and from work, trucking, just about anything and everything Americans use and do. This in turn will make the U.S. less competitive in world markets and induce many businesses to relocate operations overseas, which will cost jobs in the U.S.
Almost every nation throughout the world will continue drilling for oil, such as (in no particular order): 17 nations in Africa; Australia; New Zealand; 15 nations in Europe (including the UK, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Russia); the Middle East (Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Yemen); 31 of the 50 U.S. states; Canada and Mexico; 15 South American countries, including Brazil (which the U.S. recently helped finance).
You can be sure none of these countries will stop offshore or deepwater oil drilling because the U.S. has shut down any or all of its own drilling activity. Furthermore, none of them regulate oil drilling nearly as strictly as the U.S. So, what we will get for this trade-off will be far more pollution in other parts of the world, much of which will drift to other areas, to say nothing of the loss of some $6 billion in annual revenue to the U.S. Treasury from oil drilling royalties that are paid by the oil companies.
Obama can talk as tough as he wants, threaten or cajole BP and the other oil companies, but his statements are more about PR than accomplishing anything, other than using the situation as another opportunity to push for something he wants, which in this case is to have Congress pass his Cap and Trade bill. Once again, Obama followed the admonition of his chief-of-staff, Rham Emanuel, that “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”
Never mind that Americans overwhelmingly oppose this legislation, Obama pressed on, suggesting that passage of Cap and Trade would take us to “a new future that will benefit us all.”
Obama wants Americans to end their “addiction” to oil, but offers to replace it with such other sources as wind and solar power, along with other embryonic technologies, none of which are anywhere close to being developed to the point where they are not only practical but economically feasible, including automobiles that will run on electricity.
It’s no wonder Obama’s approval ratings have been dropping like a stone.
For Obama, the blowout is about more than oil, it’s about his ability to lead.
usa online gambling? Play Online Blackjack For Money Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Australia Gambling online blackjack in usa
play online casino!
usa online gambling? Roulette Software Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Gambling In Michigan online blackjack in usa
play online casino! Playtech Bingo
