Mo'thanskin

"Obama Machine Ramrods Health Care Reform"

mothanskin — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:23:00 GMT

President Barack Obama achieved a milestone Wednesday when a Senate committee approved a plan to revamp the U.S. health care system.
The Senate panel's action, which attracted no Republican votes, came as the president's campaign organization rolled out television ads to build support for his top domestic priority.
Obama met with Republicans at the White House in search of an elusive bipartisan compromise on his call to expand coverage to the nearly 50 million uninsured Americans as well as restrain spending increases in health care.
But the 13-10 party-line vote in the Senate health committee signaled a deepening rift in Congress. While Democrats respond to Obama's call for action with renewed determination, Republicans are using harsher words to voice their misgivings.
In the House, Democrats began pushing legislation through the first of three committees, although moderate and conservative members of the rank and file were demanding changes. In the Senate, lawmakers were considering fees on health insurance companies as a new source of potential financing for a $1 trillion package that's short on funds.
The health panel's $615 billion measure would require individuals to get health insurance and employers to contribute to the cost. The bill calls for the government to provide financial assistance with premiums for individuals and families making up to four times the federal poverty level, or about $88,000 for a family of four, a broad cross-section of the middle class.
Obama wants the House and Senate to act on health care this summer so lawmakers can reconcile differences in their respective bills after Labor Day and put final legislation on his desk this fall.
Obama met at the White House with Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
"I urged him not to rush consideration of the bill," Collins told reporters later. "This bill is going to affect virtually every American. If the president tries to rush this through in the next two weeks ... I fear the process will be very divisive."
Another senior Republican, whom Obama courted only a few months ago to become his commerce secretary, also sounded alarm bells.
"This supposed health care fix is a health care failure and a disaster for the American people," Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said. "We still have time to turn this process around instead of steamrolling our country into a sub-par government-run plan, but it will require serious action from Democrats and Republicans and a pledge to put politics aside."
Obama's political organization launched a series of 30-second television ads on health care, which were to begin airing Wednesday in Washington and on cable TV nationally. A version will run for two weeks on local stations in Arkansas, Indiana, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, North Dakota, Nebraska and Ohio to prod senators to back the health care effort.
In the ads, private citizens describe problems they've had with the medical system and say it's time for action. The sponsor is Organizing for America, Obama's campaign organization, which has become part of the national Democratic Party. The group would not reveal the cost.
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., one of the lawmakers targeted, said the ads would not affect his decision. He has concerns that the evolving Democratic plans would give government too big a role. (Read Full Article)
House Democrats plan to fund the broadest U.S. health-care expansion in four decades by increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans, imposing a surtax of 5.4 percent on couples with more than $1 million in income.
The legislation unveiled yesterday would place additional taxes on households with more than $350,000 a year in income and calls for further increases if the measure doesn’t hit a target for cost savings. The provisions are intended to raise $544 billion over 10 years.
The 1,018-page House Democratic plan builds on a June 19 draft and for the first time includes details on how to pay for the measure. In addition to the levy on millionaire households, the House would place surtaxes of 1.5 percent on couples with incomes of $500,000 to $1 million and 1 percent on those with incomes of more than $350,000.
In 2012, the White House budget office would review the estimated savings from the health-care overhaul. If the savings are $150 billion more than expected, then the government would scrap a planned second set of increases for those making between $350,000 and $1 million. If the extra savings top $175 billion, the surcharge for those incomes would be eliminated altogether.
The surtax on wealthier Americans would be imposed based on adjusted gross income, meaning it would also apply to capital gains and dividends, which are currently taxed at a 15 percent rate. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said lawmakers targeted high earners because it “causes the least amount of pain on the least amount of people.”
The House is also proposing a mandate on Americans above a certain income level: People would be penalized as much as 2.5 percent of their income for failure to buy health insurance. Most employers would be required to insure their employees or pay a penalty equal to as much as 8 percent of their payroll.
The plan drew fire from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s biggest business lobby.
“The intention of this plan is to tax high-income households, but the real victims would be America’s small business owners,” the Washington-based group’s president, Thomas Donohue, said in a statement. “Since when does our great free-market country punish success?” (Read Full Article)
For Norman Oberlander, who owns a small advertising firm in Melville, a proposal by House Democrats requiring health care insurance for employees would be "catastrophic."

If he had to pay health care costs, said Oberlander, owner of Zip Speak, cash-flow and payroll problems would ensue.

"It would not make me want to grow," he said Wednesday. "Worst case scenario I would probably get so small I would freelance out of my house."

Long Island small business owners Wednesday were mostly opposed to the proposal House Democrats announced Tuesday, which they see as yet another tax on companies struggling in a difficult economy. The plan would require all but the smallest companies to provide health insurance, and impose financial penalties on those that do not. A Senate committee approved a $600-billion bill Wednesday that is part of larger package.
Not all companies are against the proposal, however.

Anne Shybunko-Moore, president of defense contractor GSE Dynamics Inc. in Hauppauge, said the company's health care costs skyrocketed 30 percent this year. Yet, she said, GSE continues to provide coverage.

"In would not be able to sleep at night if I didn't offer coverage" to the company's 52 employees, Shybunko-Moore said.

For some companies, providing health care is part of their mission statements. Arthur M. Katz, chief executive of Uniondale-based Knockout Pest Control Inc. noted that the company's mission statement is "Our employees forever, our customers forever."

"We attract better employees by providing health insurance, Katz said."

But Kurt Berlinger, a principal at Long Island Fiber Exchange, a Nesconset technology company, said the House proposal is "a terrible idea . . . The amount we pay in taxes [ruins] the business. There's nothing left at the end of the day." (Read Full Article)

The Obama political machine continues to ramrod health care reform through Congress, so far taxing the rich, small businesses and people who don't want health insurance. (Yes Virgina, there are millions of people who don't want health insurance) Thank God, there are fiscal conservative Democrats resisting the Obama political machine, in spite of the ad campaigns used against them by the Obama Administration. The American people are not dumb and they don't like political machines. Our health care system needs reform. Government controlled health care may bring down the costs of health care initially but the quality of health care in America will suffer, as I see it. The government can never give to it's citizens what it first doesn't take from it's citizens. Big Government intervention in the free market always exacerbates economic problems. Political machines always stifle freedom and choice. Resistance is in order, as I see it.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"Big Oil's Embrace Of Biofuels"

mothanskin — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:53:00 GMT

Jamie Rector/Bloomberg News; Mike Stone/Associated Press

J. Craig Venter, top, a maverick scientist best known for decoding the human genome, is working with Rex Tillerson of Exxon.

On Tuesday, Exxon plans to announce an investment of $600 million in producing liquid transportation fuels from algae — organisms in water that range from pond scum to seaweed. The biofuel effort involves a partnership with Synthetic Genomics, a biotechnology company founded by the genomics pioneer J. Craig Venter.
The agreement could plug a major gap in the strategy of Exxon, the world’s largest and richest publicly traded oil company, which has been criticized by environmental groups for dismissing concerns about global warming in the past and its reluctance to develop renewable fuels.
Despite the widely publicized “moonshine” remark a few years ago by Exxon’s chairman and chief executive, Rex W. Tillerson, the company has spent several years exploring various fuel alternatives, according to one of its top research officials.
“Research is great, but we need to see new products in the market,” Kert Davies, the research director at Greenpeace, said. “We’ve always said that major oil companies have to be involved. But the question is whether companies are simply paying lip service to something or whether they are putting their weight and power behind it.”
But if it proves a bona fide effort, Exxon’s move into biofuels, long the preserve of venture capital firms and biotech start-ups, could provide a big push to the Obama administration’s policy of encouraging more renewable energy.
According to Exxon, algae could yield more than 2,000 gallons of fuel per acre of production each year, compared with 650 gallons for palm trees and 450 gallons for sugar canes. Corn yields just 250 gallons per acre a year.
Exxon’s partnership with Synthetic Genomics is also a vote of confidence in the work of Dr. Venter, a maverick scientist best known for decoding the human genome in the 1990s. In recent years, he has focused his attention on a search for micro-organisms that could be turned into fuel.
“Algae is the ultimate biological system using sunlight to capture and convert carbon dioxide into fuel,” Dr. Venter said.
Algal biofuel, sometimes nicknamed oilgae by environmentalists, is a promising technology. Fuels derived from algae have molecular structures that are similar to petroleum products, including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, and would be compatible with the existing transportation infrastructure, according to Exxon. (Read Full Article)
BP has insisted it remains firmly on track with plans to grow its Alternative Energy business, despite confirmation it has accepted the resignation of the division's boss and is to close down its London headquarters.
A spokesman for the oil giant told BusinessGreen.com that the move was part of a process of "simplification and overhead reduction", and should not be interpreted as a sign of wavering commitment to the clean energy division.
He added that the recent cuts in investment were primarily a result of the recession and that BP remained "slightly ahead of schedule" in its plan to invest $8bn in clean energy between 2005 and 2015. (Read Full Article)
Royal Dutch Shell provoked a furious backlash from campaigners yesterday when it announced plans to scale back its renewable energy business and focus purely on oil, gas and biofuels.
Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive, said that Shell, the world's second-largest non-state-controlled oil company, was planning to drop all new investment in wind, solar and hydrogen energy.
“I don't expect them to grow much at Shell from here, due to portfolio fit and the returns outlook compared to other opportunities,” he said, speaking at the Anglo-Dutch group's annual strategy briefing.
He said that instead Shell would focus its remaining renewable energy investments on biofuels, where it is conducting research into “second generation” fuels, so far with little commercial success. (Read Full Article)

It would appear that the Big Oil companies see the "handwriting on the wall" concerning dependence on oil for energy and are seeking to develop alternative energy sources., particularly in biofuels. As I see it, biofuels that are grown from the soil, have a very adverse effect on food production and price because of the tremendous amount of arable land required to grow the biofuels, whether corn, sugar or grass. Exxon looking at algae as an energy source, teaming up with the brilliant scientist committed to algae as an energy source sounds like a real possibility for clean and renewable energy that won't affect food production and price. Let us pray Exxon and other Big Oil companies really "put their money where their mouth is" in developing alternative energy sources, for the American and global good.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"Bush/Obama Unwarranted Surveillance Exposed"

mothanskin — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 04:08:00 GMT

The Bush administration built an unprecedented surveillance operation to pull in mountains of information far beyond the warrantless wiretapping previously acknowledged, a team of federal inspectors general reported Friday, questioning the legal basis for the effort but shielding almost all details on grounds they're still too secret to reveal.
The report, compiled by five inspectors general, refers to "unprecedented collection activities" by U.S. intelligence agencies under an executive order signed by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Just what those activities involved remains classified, but the IGs pointedly say that any continued use of the secret programs must be "carefully monitored."
The report says too few relevant officials knew of the size and depth of the program, let alone signed off on it. They particularly criticize John Yoo, a deputy assistant attorney general who wrote legal memos undergirding the policy. His boss, Attorney General John Ashcroft, was not aware until March 2004 of the exact nature of the intelligence operations beyond wiretapping that he had been approving for the previous two and a half years, the report says.
Most of the intelligence leads generated under what was known as the "President's Surveillance Program" did not have any connection to terrorism, the report said. But FBI agents told the authors that the "mere possibility of the leads producing useful information made investigating the leads worthwhile."
Although the report documents Bush administration policies, its fallout could be a problem for the Obama administration if it inherited any or all of the still-classified operations.
Information gathered by the secret program played a limited role in the FBI's overall counterterrorism efforts, according to the report. Very few CIA analysts even knew about the program and therefore were unable to fully exploit it in their counterrorism work, the report said. (Read Full Article)
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (also called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, H.R. 6304, enacted 2008-07-10) is an Act of Congress that amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency (NSA) was revealed publicly in late 2005 by The New York Times and then discontinued in January 2007. See Letter from Attorney-General Alberto Gonzalez to Senators Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter, CONG. REC. S646-S647 (Jan. 17, 2007). Approximately forty lawsuits have been filed against telecommunications companies by groups and individuals alleging that the Bush administration illegally monitored their phone calls or e-mails. Whistleblower evidence suggests that AT&T was complicit in the NSA's warrantless surveillance, which could have involved the private communications of millions of Americans. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it illegal to intentionally engage in electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act or to disclose or use information obtained by electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act knowing that it was not authorized by statute; this is punishable with a fine of up to $10,000 or up to five years in prison, or both. In addition, the Wiretap Act prohibits any person from illegally intercepting, disclosing, using or divulging phone calls or electronic communications; this is punishable with a fine or up to five years in prison, or both.
The provisions of the Act granting immunity to the complicit telecoms create a roadblock for a number of lawsuits intended to expose and thwart the alleged abuses of power and illegal activities of the federal government since and before the September 11th attacks.
Allows the government to conduct surveillance of any person for up to one week (168 hours) without a warrant, increased from the previous 48 hours, as long as the FISA court is notified at the time such surveillance begins, and an application as usually required for surveillance authorization is submitted by the government to FISA within those 168 hours. (Read Full Article)
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) today announced his support for a sweeping intelligence surveillance law that has been heavily denounced by the liberal activists who have fueled the financial engines of his presidential campaign.
In his most substantive break with the Democratic Party's base since becoming the presumptive nominee, Obama declared he will support the bill when it comes to a Senate vote, likely next week, despite misgivings about legal provisions for telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program of suspected terrorists.
"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program," Obama said in a statement hours after the House approved the legislation 293-129. (Read Full Article)

The extent of the Bush Administration's massive violations of Americans right of privacy through unwarranted wire tapping and electronic surveillance is now coming to light. The $64,000 question is will the Obama Administration do something about it or quietly keep in place these Constitution and civil liberty trashing surveillance programs? As a Senator , President Obama voted for the very flawed FISA Amendments Act of 2008 with the promise to "monitor" surveillance of American citizens if he became President. Time will if President Obama will follow the Bush precedent of abusive executive power or restore the Constitutional balance of power between the President and the Congress. Power corrupts.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"The Mixed Legacy Of Michael Jackson"

mothanskin — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:08:00 GMT

Tue Jul 7, 6:30 PM ET Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee displays House Resolution 600 honouring Michael Jackson, that she recently introduced and is pending in the U.S. House of Representatives, as she speaks during the memorial service for Michael Jackson at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, California, July 7, 2009. REUTERS/Mark J. Terrill/Pool (UNITED STATES ENTERTAINMENT OBITUARY IMAGES OF THE DAY SOCIETY POLITICS)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shut the door Thursday to a resolution honoring Michael Jackson because debate on the symbolic measure could raise "contrary views" about the pop star's life.
Lawmakers are free to use House speeches "to express their sympathy or their praise any time that they wish," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "I don't think it's necessary for us to have a resolution."
A resolution sponsored by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, cites some of the singer's charitable acts and proclaims him an American legend, musical icon and world humanitarian.
Even before Pelosi's comments, some Democrats said privately they did not support the resolution and a divisive debate would hurt House efforts to muster the votes for priorities such as health care and climate change.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who posted a video on YouTube calling Michael Jackson a "pervert" and a "pedophile," has pledged to do all he could to block the resolution.
"A resolution, I think, would open up to contrary views to — that are not necessary at this time to be expressed in association with a resolution whose purpose is quite different," Pelosi said at a Capitol Hill news conference where she discussed various legislative matters.
Unbowed, Jackson Lee said she will seek support from colleagues who thanked her when she introduced the measure June 26, one day after Michael Jackson died. She said honorary resolutions don't often "pass the next day."
From the stage at Jackson's memorial Tuesday at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, Jackson Lee hoisted a framed copy of the resolution. (Read Full Article)
The Los Angeles police chief says detectives investigating the death of Michael Jackson are looking at his prescription drug history and trying to talk with his numerous former doctors.
Police Chief William Bratton told CNN on Thursday that police are waiting for the coroner's report before ruling out any possibilities in their "comprehensive and far-reaching" investigation into the sudden death of the 50-year-old pop star two weeks ago.
The coroner's report will determine the cause of death and hinges on time-consuming toxicology tests, but detectives are already gathering evidence.
Bratton says the Drug Enforcement Agency and the state attorney general's office, which keeps a database of prescription drugs, are assisting investigators. (Read Full Article)
What do Michael Jackson and Albert Einstein have in common...besides pure genius? Both their brains are in a glass jar—at least for the time being.
The Los Angeles County Coroner's Office says it's holding onto a section of the late King of Pop's brain as part of its investigation into how he died.
Because toxicology tests take several weeks and are not yet complete, a coroner spokesman says pathologists need to wait for the organ to harden before they can conduct neuropathology tests to help determine what caused Jackson's apparent cardiac arrest and subsequent death.
Investigators have focused on the possibility that Jackson accidentally overdosed on a potent anesthetic, and a thorough examination of brain tissue might shed some light on what drugs were in his system. (Read Full Article)
A city council member on Thursday called on AEG Live to pay some of the estimated $1.4 million cost for policing Michael Jackson's memorial service at the Staples Center.
Dennis Zine told Fox 11 that the city's taxpayers "are getting ripped off" because the owner-operator of the Staples Center profited by charging media up to $50,000 to use risers outside the venue.
AEG President Tim Leiweke had said Zine was out of line for asking AEG to pay for policing because it helped solicit donors for the Los Angeles Lakers' NBA victory parade last month.
Jackson's concert promoter, AEG Live, said that it paid for the memorial itself along with the Jackson estate, but did not mention the cost of crowd control.
The parade and memorial both resulted in extraordinary costs to Los Angeles at a time when it is in debt for half of a billion dollars and facing employee layoffs.
The cost of city services for the Lakers' parade was about $1 million. Donors covered about $850,000 of that sum. The Lakers and AEG spent another $1 million to produce the parade and rally at Memorial Coliseum. (Read Full Article)

Michael Jackson's body is without his brain, the broke city of Los Angeles is out over a million dollars, some former doctors of Mr. Jackson are going to jail possibly and Nancy Pelosi has said Congress will not formerly honor Michael Jackson by a Congressional resolution. The custody of his adopted children and the management of his probably billion dollar estate will be in the news for months to come. Michael Jackson, the mentally ill musical genius and humanitarian, deserves to be honored by those who appreciated his music and his humanitarianism. Such honor does not rise to the level of a Congressional Resolution, as I see it. Like the legacy of many great men before him, Michael Jackson will have a mixed legacy of good and bad. Michael Jackson was what he was. R.I.P Mr. Jackson.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"The Untold Story Of Wind Power; Unreliability"

mothanskin — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:41:00 GMT

Plans for the world's largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle have been scrapped, energy baron T. Boone Pickens said Tuesday, and he's looking for a home for 687 giant wind turbines.
Pickens has already ordered the turbines, which can stand 400 feet tall — taller than most 30-story buildings.
"When I start receiving those turbines, I've got to ... like I said, my garage won't hold them," the legendary Texas oilman said. "They've got to go someplace."
Pickens' company Mesa Power ordered the turbines from General Electric Co. — a $2 billion investment — a little more than a year ago. Pickens said he has leases on about 200,000 acres in Texas that were planned for the project, and he might place some of the turbines there, but he's also looking for smaller wind projects to participate in. He said he's looking at potential sites in the Midwest and Canada.
In Texas, the problem lies in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system, Pickens said in an interview with The Associated Press in New York. He'd hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said there were technical problems.
"It doesn't mean that wind is dead," said Pickens, who runs the Dallas-based energy investment fund BP Capital. "It just means we got a little bit too quick off the blocks."
Like most industries around the world, the recession has hurt wind turbine manufacturers and wind farm developers. Companies have shelved development plans and laid off workers. (Read Full Article)
T. Boone Pickens has temporarily shelved plans to build the world's biggest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle because of tight credit markets and low natural gas prices, and his company Mesa Power is looking for other projects that could use the $2 billion worth of wind turbines already on order.
Pickens unveiled plans in 2007 for the 4,000-megawatt wind farm -- big enough to power 1.3 million homes -- at a projected cost of $10 billion. In May 2008, Pickens ordered 667 wind turbines from General Electric for the first of four project phases. Mesa is scheduled to begin taking delivery in 2011.
The project was a symbol of the oilman's commitment to his high-profile campaign to slash the nation's dependence on foreign oil with a combination of wind power and the use of natural gas in vehicles.
Rosser said Mesa Power was also unable to borrow $2 billion for transmission lines to link the wind farm to the Texas grid. "Now we're going to wait for the state to put the transmission [lines] in, which will invariably be slower than what we were planning," Rosser said.
He said Mesa Power was looking at projects in the Midwest and Canada that might need the turbines.
Pickens made his fortune in the oil business but last year lost a big chunk of it in oil trading because he failed to anticipate a swift drop in prices. He has spent $60 million promoting the Pickens Plan for reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. (Read Full Article)
Boone Pickens is calling for massive subsidization of the wind-power industry.
As with ethanol and recycling and a host of other issues, you must ask yourself again, if these things are so efficient, why do they need to be subsidized? Answer: they're not so efficient.
Energies that require massive subsidization benefit absolutely no one; the only reason they need to be subsidized is that they cannot compete on the open market.
That fact alone tells you everything you need to know about them: they're simply not good enough yet.
When they are, the free market will adopt them naturally.
The reason wind power still won't get us very far is that transmitting this power is such a huge difficulty.
Wind is also unpredictable; it's therefore hard to integrate into an electrical grid, since grids have to maintain a voltage balance, or you'll get brownouts, blackouts, and power surges that destroy equipment by the ton.
Here's what you don't see in the fine print: The vast majority of wind energy needs to be transmitted. Thus, you'll need to step up voltage to 745 kilovolts (which is a lot) so that wind doesn't lose all its energy in the transmitting process. That infrastructure alone — forget the actual windfarms — will cost billions. (Read Full Article)

It is becoming common to see wind turbines in commercials touting wind as the clean, renewable energy we need to be rid of dependence on foreign oil. Oilman T. Boone Pickens as spent millions of his own fortune in promoting and building wind farms in the Texas panhandle. Apparently Mr. Boone didn't factor in the problems with transmitting wind power, namely wind power is tremendously unreliable and unpredictable. Transmitting wind power costs as much or more than producing the wind power. As see it, wind and solar energy works fine for single houses or small communities but are impractical for large urban or rural areas because of transmission problems on a grid. As I see it, America needs to invest in clean coal technology and safe, reusable nuclear technology, energy that is much more reliable and easier to transmit in grids. Leave wind energy for the birds.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"The Pope's Call For Socialism"

mothanskin — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:25:00 GMT

Sun Jul 5, 8:03 AM ET Pope Benedict XVI addresses the crowd gathered below in Saint Peter's square during his weekly Angelus blessing at the Vatican July 5, 2009.REUTERS/Chris Helgren (VATICAN RELIGION)

Pope Benedict XVI called Tuesday for a new world financial order guided by ethics and the search for the common good, denouncing the profit-at-all-cost mentality blamed for bringing about the global financial meltdown.
In the third encyclical of his pontificate, Benedict pressed for reform of the United Nations and international economic and financial institutions to give poorer countries more of a say in international policy.
"There is urgent need (for) a true world political authority" that can manage the global economy, guarantee the environment is protected, ensure world peace and bring about food security for the poor, he wrote.
The document "Charity in Truth," was in the works for two years, and its publication was repeatedly delayed to incorporate the fallout from the crisis. It was released a day before leaders of the Group of Eight industrialized nations meet to coordinate efforts to deal with the global meltdown, signaling a clear Vatican bid to prod leaders for a financially responsible future and what it considers a more socially just society.
"The economy needs ethics in order to function correctly — not any ethics, but an ethics which is people centered," Benedict wrote.
He urged wealthier countries to increase development aid to poor countries to help eliminate world hunger, saying peace and security depended on it. He specified that aid should go to agricultural development to improve infrastructure, irrigation systems, transport and sharing of agricultural technology.
At the same time, he demanded that industrialized nations reduce their energy consumption, both to better care for the environment and to let the poorer have access to energy resources.
Benedict called for a whole new financial order — "a profoundly new way of understanding business enterprise" — that respects the dignity of workers and looks out for the common good by prioritizing ethics and social responsibility over dividend returns.
"It's almost as if the church has so little trust in business leaders that it speaks to the political leaders urging regulation and the consumers urging voting with their buying power," said Hanson, who chaired hearings leading up to a similar U.S. Catholic bishops' statement on capitalism and social justice in the 1980s. (Read Full Article)
An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations is the magnum opus of the Scottish economist Adam Smith. It is a clearly written account of economics at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, as well as a rhetorical piece written for the generally educated individual of the 18th century - advocating a free market economy as more productive and more beneficial to society. He was Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Glasgow. There is an ethical tone to his arguments that is not always shared by those who seemingly subscribe to his free market philosophy.
The work is credited as a watershed in history and economics due to its comprehensive, largely accurate characterization of economic mechanisms that survive in modern economics; and also for its effective use of rhetorical technique, including structuring the work to contrast real world examples of free and fettered markets.
A phrase often quoted and alluded to, it conveys the unintentional benefits stemming from individuals' pursuit of their own wants and needs. An example from the earlier chapters: The Butcher, the Baker, and the Brewer provide goods and services to each other out of self-interest; the unplanned result of this division of labor is a better standard of living for all three.
There are two important features of Smith's concept of the "invisible hand". First, Smith was not advocating a social policy (that people should act in their own self interest), but rather was describing an observed economic reality (that people do act in their own interest). Second, Smith was not claiming that all self-interest has beneficial effects on the community. He did not argue that self-interest is always good but that the alternative is worse: "By pursuing his own self interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good". (Read Full Article)

I have the greatest respect for Pope Benedict XVI but in his call for a new economic order centered on the "greater good" of the people, as I see it, that is a call for socialism. Socialism sounds good on paper but inevitably you end up with an oligarchy like in The People's Republic of China, controlling the personal lives of the masses, not elevating the masses. I agree with the economist Adam Smith, that when people are acting in their own self interests more good is done for society than when the government decides what is in the best interests of society. In my opinion, capitalists with personal integrity do more for society than a socialist government does, in the long run. I believe God uses the free market "invisible hand" along with the ethics of religion to better society, not socialism.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"The National Debt And Budget Deficit Are Not The Same"

mothanskin — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:35:00 GMT

The Founding Fathers left one legacy not celebrated on Independence Day but which affects us all. It's the national debt.
The country first got into debt to help pay for the Revolutionary War. Growing ever since, the debt stands today at a staggering $11.5 trillion — equivalent to over $37,000 for each and every American. And it's expanding by over $1 trillion a year.
The mountain of debt easily could become the next full-fledged economic crisis without firm action from Washington, economists of all stripes warn.
"Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal sustainability in the longer term, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth," Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently told Congress.
Higher taxes, or reduced federal benefits and services — or a combination of both — may be the inevitable consequences.
The nation has only been free of debt once, in 1834-1835.
The national debt has expanded during times of war and usually contracted in times of peace, while staying on a generally upward trajectory. Over the past several decades, it has climbed sharply — except for a respite from 1998 to 2000, when there were annual budget surpluses, reflecting in large part what turned out to be an overheated economy.
The debt soared with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and economic stimulus spending under President George W. Bush and now Obama.
The debt gap is "something that keeps me awake at night," Obama says.
He pledged to cut the budget "deficit" roughly in half by the end of his first term. But "deficit" just means the difference between government receipts and spending in a single budget year.
This year's deficit is now estimated at about $1.85 trillion.
Deficits don't reflect holdover indebtedness from previous years. Some spending items — such as emergency appropriations bills and receipts in the Social Security program — aren't included, either, although they are part of the national debt.
The national debt is a broader, and more telling, way to look at the government's balance sheets than glancing at deficits. (Read Full Article)
A budget deficit occurs when an entity spends more money than it takes in. The opposite of a budget deficit is a budget surplus. Debt is essentially an accumulated flow of deficits. In other words, a deficit is a flow, and debt is a stock.
An accumulated deficit over several years (or centuries) is referred to as the government debt. Government debt is usually financed by borrowing, although if a government's debt is denominated in its own currency it can print new currency to pay debts. Monetizing debts, however, can cause rapid inflation if done on a large scale. Governments can also sell assets to pay off debt. Most governments finance their debts by issuing long-term government bonds or shorter term notes and bills. Many governments use auctions to sell government bonds.
Governments usually must pay interest on what they have borrowed. Governments reduce debt when their revenues exceed their current expenditures and interest costs. Otherwise, government debt increases, requiring the issue of new government bonds or other means of financing debt, such as asset sales. (Read Full Article)
Suresh Tendulkar, an economic adviser to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, said he is urging the government to diversify its $264.6 billion foreign-exchange reserves and hold fewer dollars.
“The major part of Indian reserves are in dollars -- that is something that’s a problem for us,” Tendulkar, chairman of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, said in an interview yesterday in Aix-en-Provence, France, where he was attending an economic conference.
China and Russia have stepped up calls for a rethink of how global currency reserves are composed and managed, underlining a power shift to emerging markets from the developed nations that spawned the financial crisis.
“There should be a system to maintain the stability of the major reserve currencies,” Former Chinese Vice Premier Zeng Peiyan said in a speech in Beijing yesterday, highlighting China’s concerns about a global financial system dominated by the dollar.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has repeatedly called for creating a mix of regional reserve currencies as part of the drive to address the global financial crisis, while questioning the dollar’s future as a global reserve currency. Russia’s proposals for the Group of 20 major developed and developing nations summit in London in April included the creation of a supranational currency. (Read Full Article)

The national debt and the budget deficit are not the same. The current US national debt is over eleven trillion dollars. This year's US budget deficit is almost two trillion dollars. This nation has been debt free only once for a very short time. As long as this nation is fighting a war somewhere, we will always be in debt. The national debt can only go down with balanced federal budgets, such as the years of the Republican controlled Congress of President Bill Clinton. President Obama talks about not sleeping worrying about the national debt while he asks for massive deficit spending in a recession. US debt is getting to the point that foreign countries no longer want the US dollar to be the reserve currency. As I see it, America needs a fiscally responsible President and Congress that will have the balls to do what is necessary to bring down the national debt and balance the federal budget, that is raise taxes and cut spending, reserving judicious tax cuts for businesses only, to spur the economy. I pray that fiscally responsible Congressman from both parties will stand up against the Obama Administration's massive Big Government deficit spending. There is a God.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"Will Clean Energy Spending Create Recession Ending Jobs?"

mothanskin — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:57:00 GMT

President Barack Obama said Thursday that he remains confident the economy will turn around in the short term and the nation will prosper in the long term despite another dose of bad unemployment news.
"And I'm absolutely confident that we can, at this period of difficulty, prove, once again, what this nation can achieve when challenged," Obama said in the Rose Garden after a meeting with executives from energy companies.
Earlier, the government reported that employers cut a larger-than-expected 467,000 jobs in June. The unemployment rate climbed to a 26-year high of 9.5 percent.
Obama called that report sobering news but better than the last economic quarter and a sign that the recession is slowing.
"Obviously, this is little comfort to all those Americans who have lost their jobs," he said.
Obama and his team have pointed to energy companies in citing ways to steady the economy and put people back to work. The White House is working to keep energy in the spotlight even as Congress takes a break this week for the July 4 holiday.
The House last week narrowly approved the first energy legislation designed to curb global warming following furious lobbying by White House advisers and personal pressure by the president himself.
"So these companies are vivid examples of the kind of future we can create," the president said Thursday in the Rose Garden, flanked by energy industry leaders. "But it's now up to the Senate to continue the work that was begun in the House to forge this more prosperous future. We're going to need to set aside the posturing and the politics, and when we put aside the old ideological debates, then our choice is clear."
He added: "It's a choice between slow decline and renewed prosperity. It's a choice between the past and the future." (The Article Source)
The number of jobs in America’s emerging clean energy economy grew nearly two and a half times faster than overall jobs between 1998 and 2007, according to a report released today by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Pew developed a clear, data-driven definition of the clean energy economy and conducted the first-ever hard count across all 50 states of the actual jobs, companies and venture capital investments that supply the growing market demand for environmentally friendly products and services.

Pew found that jobs in the clean energy economy grew at a national rate of 9.1 percent, while traditional jobs grew by only 3.7 percent between 1998 and 2007. There was a similar pattern at the state level, where job growth in the clean energy economy outperformed overall job growth in 38 states and the District of Columbia during the same period. The report also found that this promising sector is poised to expand significantly, driven by increasing consumer demand, venture capital infusions, and federal and state policy reforms.

America’s clean energy economy has grown despite a lack of sustained government support in the past decade. By 2007, more than 68,200 businesses across all 50 states and the District of Columbia accounted for about 770,000 jobs.

By comparison, the well-established fossil-fuel sector—including utilities, coal mining and oil and gas extraction, industries that have received significant government investment—comprised about 1.27 million workers in 2007.

“The clean energy economy is poised for explosive growth,” said Lori Grange, interim deputy director of the Pew Center on the States. “These jobs are driving economic growth and environmental sustainability at a time when America needs both. There is a potential competitive advantage for federal and state policy leaders who act now to spur jobs, businesses and investments in the clean energy sector.” (Read Full Article)
The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating "green jobs" in "alternative energy" even though Spain's unemployment rate is 18.1 percent -- more than double the European Union average -- partly because of spending on such jobs?
Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report that, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.
Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" -- gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs elsewhere in Spain's economy. (Read Full Article)

The Obama Administration has an agenda to spend billions of dollars on clean energy, justifying such spending will "save the planet" and create new recession ending jobs. Spain has already spent billions on clean energy but has a 18.1 joblessness rate. A new job created doesn't mean much when two jobs are lost in the process. I am all for governments doing what they can to "save the planet" but the government subsidized corn ethanol industry didn't get better gas mileage and caused food inflation notwithstanding a few corn farmers made a killing. Spending billions on clean energy will not get America out of recession, as I see it, despite what President Obama says.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"No More Acceptable Civilian Casualties In Afghanistan"

mothanskin — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:31:00 GMT

Thousands of U.S. Marines and hundreds of Afghan troops moved into Taliban-infested villages of southern Afghanistan with armor and helicopters Thursday in the first major operation under President Barack Obama's strategy to stabilize the country.
The offensive in the once-forgotten war was launched shortly after 1 a.m. Thursday local time in Helmand province, a Taliban stronghold in the southern part of the country and the world's largest opium poppy producing area.
The goal is to clear insurgents from the hotly contested Helmand River Valley before the nation's Aug. 20 presidential election.
Dubbed Operation Khanjar, or "Strike of the Sword," the military push was described by officials as the largest and fastest-moving of the war's new phase, involving nearly 4,000 of the newly arrived Marines and 650 Afghan forces. British forces last week led similar, but smaller, missions to fight and clear out insurgents in Helmand and neighboring Kandahar provinces.
"Where we go we will stay, and where we stay, we will hold, build and work toward transition of all security responsibilities to Afghan forces," Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson said in a statement. (Read Full Article)
Beginning Thursday, American soldiers in Afghanistan will be under orders to back down when they're chasing Taliban fighters whenever they think that civilians might be at risk.
Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, will issue the directive as part of an effort to cut down on civilian casualties, which have enraged the Afghan government and residents. Instead of calling in air support or firing into civilian homes where Taliban fighters have sought refuge, commanders will be instructed to reach out to tribal elders or undertake other efforts to dislodge the fighters.
The order is consistent with what National Security Adviser James L. Jones told McClatchy in Washington Wednesday was President Barack Obama's concern about civilian casualties in Afghanistan.
"General McChrystal has been given instructions when he left here that, in all military operations, that we redouble our efforts to make sure that innocent loss of life is minimized, with zero being the goal," Jones said, noting that, "In one mishap you can create thousands more terrorists than you had before the mishap."
Civilian casualties have become a major source of tension between Afghans and U.S. and other coalition forces here. Afghan President Hamid Karzai speaks out frequently against coalition forces and their use of airstrikes on campaign stops as he seeks re-election, and earlier this year, the parliament passed a resolution condemning the use of airstrikes.
Military officials, however, said that the Taliban already exploit the way the U.S. has been fighting and purposely flee to villages in anticipation that coalition actions will lead to civilian casualties, exacerbating tensions between the coalition and the civilians. (Read Full Article)
More than 80 percent of Pakistanis view the Taliban and al-Qaida as a critical threat to the country, an opinion poll released Wednesday said, marking a turn in public opinion that stands to bolster the army's ongoing offensive against militants close to the Afghan border.
The findings will likely be welcomed by Washington, which is pressing Islamabad to take the fight to insurgents blamed for scores of bloody bombings in nuclear-armed Pakistan in recent years as well as attacks on NATO and US troops in Afghanistan.
The army has been battling militants in the Swat Valley in the country's northwest since April, a campaign that has driven some 2 million civilians from their homes. In recent weeks, it has made initial forays into the mountainous tribal region of South Waziristan, where top Taliban and al-Qaida leaders are believed to be hiding.
The survey showed that 81 percent of Pakistanis believe the activities of the Taliban and other Muslim extremists were a "critical threat" to the country, up from the 34 percent polled on the same question in September 2007. Eighty-two percent said Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida was also a critical threat, exactly twice as many who thought so two years ago. (Read Full Article)

America has finally learned how to conduct a war against terrorists that use civilians as shields. Civilian casualties play into the hands of the terrorists. When American forces kill civilians , the battle may be won but the war for the hearts of the people is lost. Because the Taliban has now adopted the terrorist tactics of al-qaeda in targeting innocent civilians, the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan are turning against them. American and Pakistani forces must fight a war against the Taliban with the strict rules of engagement the Obama Administration is now calling for. Afghanistan is now a war that America can really win for democracy and the well being of the Afghan people, with the present strategy, as I see it.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"Return To Marcus Welby MD; The Real Health Care Reform?"

mothanskin — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:55:00 GMT

Fact checking President Obama's messages from ABC News' health care forum at the White House.

(ABC News Photo Illustration)

Fact check no. 5: Paying for Health Care Reform Without Adding to the Deficit
Americans support health care reform, but they don't generally support higher taxes. So it was important when President Obama said he could offer health care reform without adding to the deficit.
It will be a hard promise to deliver on. The price tag for health care reform, pegged at between $1.3 and $1.6 trillion for the several proposals on Capitol Hill, will need revenue to pay for it without adding to the deficit.
There is no consensus on how to pay for health care reform. President Obama has said he wants to pay for reform by lowering the percentage of their tax returns the wealthy can deduct. Essentially, this would raise taxes on the rich.
But even many Democrats on Capitol Hill don't want to change those rules. It could have unintended consequences on donations to charities, the subject of many deductions for the wealthy.
Moderates and some conservatives want to pay for health care reform by taxing health care benefits. Look at it this way: An worker is paid two ways -- One, they get a salary, which is taxed. Two, they get benefits, which currently are not.
One way to pay for health care reform would be to tax those benefits. This would raise taxes on everybody who pays taxes and could raise more than enough money to pay for health care. Candidate Obama promised throughout 2008 not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year. (Read Full Article)

The primary-care doctor is gaining new respect in Washington. Battles may be breaking out left and right over the various health-care bills emerging from Congress, but reformers on both sides agree that general practitioners should be given a central role in uniting the fragmented U.S. medical system.
This vision has a name: the "patient-centered medical home." The "home" is the office of a primary-care doctor where patients would go for most of their medical needs. The general practitioner would oversee everything from flu shots to chronic disease management to weight loss, and coordinate care with nurses, pharmacists, and specialists. A 2004 study estimated that if every patient had such a home, the resulting efficiencies might reduce U.S. health-care costs by 5.6%, a savings of $67 billion a year.
Instead, most patients today get a scant seven minutes with a general practitioner, who has time to do little more than ask cursory questions and focus on the problem at hand. The patient rushes to specialists for chronic conditions that could be managed by a regular doctor. (Today, these different physicians rarely coordinate.) Last-minute appointments are almost unheard of -- one reason patients with minor complaints flock to already crowded hospital emergency rooms.
This medical home may sound like the "gatekeeper" model of the 1990s, a managed-care creation that was all about holding down costs. But advocates say the new concept is designed to help patients, not insurers. It's more like doctoring 1950s-style, when a Marcus Welby figure handled all the family's medical needs. This time it's juiced up with digital technology.
It also represents a politically painless way to streamline a disorganized and wasteful system that chews up a crippling 18% of the U.S. gross domestic product. That burden is felt particularly by private industry, which covers 60% of the nation's insured. Since most businesses try to ferret out waste and disorganization in their own operations, the medical home is a concept they can embrace in good conscience.
Medical-home enthusiasts are lobbying for a change in primary-care reimbursements in any health-care bill that emerges from Congress, with a payment structure that rewards collaboration and prevention. They have a friend in Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.), a key player in the health-care reform effort. As he points out: "Watching over a patient's full medical history... is a quality measure and a cost-control measure." (Read Full Article)

Is the return to Marcus Welby MD, the real health care reform? In a generation when most medical students want to be specialists instead of general practitioners, mainly because of money, can this be a reality? As I see it, ultimately physicians will have to be the catalysts of change in bringing down the costs of health care. For too long physicians have "played the system" of government and private insurers paying for quantity of service instead of quality of service. Doctors order unnecessary and expensive scans simply because they can. Doctors have to figure in their expensive medical malpractice insurance in billings. More money is made by prescribing certain drugs than other drugs. Treating illnesses reactively is more profitable than treating illnesses proactively. Marcus Welby MD, where are you?

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"Affirmative Action; Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right"

mothanskin — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:47:00 GMT

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.
The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide and make it harder to prove discrimination when there is no evidence it was intentional.
New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.
In Monday's ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions." He was joined in the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them."
Justices Souter, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg's dissent, which she read aloud in court Monday. Speaking dismissively of the majority opinion, she predicted the court's ruling "will not have staying power."
The ruling is "a sign that individual achievement should not take a back seat to race or ethnicity," said Karen Torre, the firefighters' attorney. "I think the import of the decision is that cities cannot bow to politics and pressure and lobbying by special interest groups or act to achieve racial quotas."
At a press conference on the steps of city hall in New Haven, firefighter Frank Ricci said the ruling showed that "if you work hard, you can succeed in America." (Read Full Article)
Affirmative action in the United States refers to policies that take gender, race, or ethnicity into account in an attempt to promote equal opportunity within the United States. The focus of such policies ranges from employment and public contracting goals to educational outreach and health programs. The impetus towards affirmative action is twofold: to maximize diversity, and its presumed benefits, in all levels of society, and to redress perceived disadvantages due to overt, institutional, or involuntary discrimination.
In many cases, affirmative action in the United States is meant to encourage public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, to be more representative of the populations they serve.
Affirmative action in the US began as a tool to address the persisting inequalities for African Americans in the 1960s. This specific term was first used to describe US government policy in 1961. Directed to all government contracting agencies, President Kennedy's Executive Order 10925 mandated "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."
After describing the specific historical context of American affirmative action, President Johnson outlined the basic social science view that supports such policies:
“
Men and women of all races are born with the same range of abilities. But ability is not just the product of birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with, and the neighborhood you live in--by the school you go to and the poverty or the richness of your surroundings. It is the product of a hundred unseen forces playing upon the little infant, the child, and finally the man.
”
As the social science explaining impact of such 'unseen forces' has developed, affirmative action has widened in scope. In 1967, President Johnson amended a previous executive order on equal employment opportunity to expressly mention "discrimination on account of sex" as well.
Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases, where it is often contested on constitutional grounds. Some individual American states also have orders that prohibit discrimination and outline affirmative action requirements with regard to race, creed, color, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, and disability status. Some other states specifically prohibit affirmative action, with laws intended to decrease discrimination, such as California (Proposition 209), Washington (Initiative 200), Michigan (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), and Nebraska (Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative (2008)).
Some opponents of affirmative action contend that affirmative action programs are discriminatory and that they, in many cases, result in the promotion of under-qualified individuals over higher qualified individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender. They also argue that preferential treatment should be based upon current social and economical standing, not that of one's ancestors. Some opponents say affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of people who are chosen because of the social group to which they belong rather than their qualifications. (Read Full Article)

Many times what ostensibly rights a wrong becomes a wrong itself and something initially incorrect can be over corrected. Well intentioned aid can in time become a crippling crutch and "two wrongs never make a right". Diversity should never come about through discrimination. I agree with the Supreme Court ruling on the New Haven, Conn. white firefighters being the victims of "reverse discrimination". The most qualified for the job, school or promotion that doesn't get that job, school or promotion has been discriminated against, whether black, white, male or female. Affirmative action is reverse discrimination, as I now see it.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"Congress Giving Due Deliberation To Health Care Reform"

mothanskin — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:18:00 GMT

Senators struggled Wednesday with the possibility that in offering subsidized health insurance to millions of individuals and families, they could inadvertently speed the erosion of employer-provided coverage, which they want to preserve.
As part of an ambitious plan to overhaul the health care system, Democrats in both houses of Congress want to require people to carry insurance. They would offer subsidies to low- and moderate-income people who buy coverage through a new regulated market known as a health insurance exchange. Employers who do not provide coverage might have to pay penalties or contribute to a government fund.
Higher penalties are more effective in preventing the erosion of employer-sponsored coverage, the bedrock of insurance for more than 150 million Americans, the Congressional Budget Office told lawmakers.
Small businesses are less likely to provide health insurance than larger businesses. So any penalty for not providing insurance could affect them more than other employers.
Senator Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas, said preserving employer-sponsored insurance “needs to be a huge objective.”
Mr. Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee, said senators were investigating “the ramifications and implications” of requiring employers to provide or pay for coverage, the so-called play-or-pay requirement. Mr. Baucus said he and other senators wanted to minimize the chance that employees “may be enticed to leave their firms in order to get health insurance in the exchange.”
The budget office said: “The availability of subsidized coverage in the new insurance exchange would be an attractive option for many lower-income workers. As a result, some employers would decide not to offer their employees health insurance coverage, opting instead to provide other forms of compensation.”
Businesses generally oppose the play-or-pay requirement. They object, in particular, to the House Democrats’ bill, under which most employers would have to provide coverage or pay a fee equivalent to 8 percent of their payroll. (Read Full Article)
Congressional investigators said Wednesday that two-thirds of the nation’s health insurance industry used a faulty database that overcharged patients for seeing doctors outside their insurance network, costing them billions of dollars in inflated bills.
The flawed database was operated by Ingenix, a subsidiary of the health insurer UnitedHealth Group, which agreed in January to pay $350 million to settle allegations that it deliberately kept rates low to underpay doctors, driving up expenses for patients.
“The result of this practice is that American consumers have paid billions of dollars for health care services that their insurance companies should have paid,” according to the report of the Senate Commerce Committee’s investigative staff. (Read Full Article)
President Obama hailed a pledge by the pharmaceutical industry to contribute $80 billion in drug discounts and other savings over the next 10 years as “a significant breakthrough on the road to health care reform.” The pledge should help large numbers of older Americans struggling to pay high drug bills.
The deal was negotiated in private among the industry, Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee and a crucial figure in shaping health reform, and the White House. From the broad outlines described by the White House, it looks as if $30 billion would be used to cut in half the price of brand-name drugs sold to Medicare patients who have reached a gap in coverage known as the doughnut hole.
That could be a great help for elderly Americans of modest means who, after reaching the gap, stop taking their medicines rather than pay the full cost themselves. And it could reduce the need for the federal government to close the hole entirely on its own. The move has been justifiably praised by AARP and the Medicare Rights Center, both advocates for beneficiaries.
Eager to have a strong voice in the health care debate — and head off more draconian demands — six major health care industries have promised to help reduce the growth in spending. So far the pharmaceutical industry is the only one to come up with specific requirements that it is willing to meet.
The Congress and the public should see these proposals as an opening bid and not the final word.
If health care reform brings coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, the pharmaceutical industry will profit from additional sales.
With such gains on the horizon, Congress and the administration need to be sure that the drug companies are contributing their fair share of cost savings to the reform effort. And they should insist that other health care industries put their own offers on the table for the same rigorous review. (Read Full Article)

Thank Heaven Congress is giving due deliberation to health care reform in America. Even Democrats are not acquiescing to all of President Obama's health care reform agenda but are being cautious about the government expanding beyond Medicaid, Medicare and SCHIP. As I see it, there are ways to cut health care costs dramatically without the government becoming a health insurer. However the threat of the government becoming a health insurer is motivating private health insurers and drug companies to cut costs now. Despite what the Obama Administration says, private insurers and employee based insurance will end with government insurance, which will ultimately lower the quality of health care in America, as I see it.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"Iranian Lion Women Standing Up To Ayatollah"

mothanskin — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:45:00 GMT

Reuters

Iran's supreme leader said Wednesday that the government would not yield to demonstrators who want a disputed presidential election annulled, effectively closing the door to compromise with the opposition.
The wife of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi was defiant, saying protesters refused to buckle under a situation she compared to martial law. Mousavi's official Web site said a protest was planned outside Iran's parliament Wednesday afternoon.
Mousavi's Web site had distanced him from the planned protest, calling it independent and saying it had not been organized by the reformist candidate.
But his wife, Zahra Rahnavard, a former university dean who campaigned beside him, said on another of his Web sites that his followers had the constitutional right to protest and the government should not deal with them "as if martial law has been imposed in the streets."
She called for the release of all activists and others arrested at protests.
Mousavi, a former prime minister, saw his campaign transform into a protest movement after the government declared that hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the June 12 election. Mousavi says the result was fraudulent, and Western analysts who have examined available data on the vote said there were indications of manipulation.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has ordered protests to end, leaving Mousavi with the choice of restraining followers or continuing to directly challenge the country's ultimate authority despite threats of escalating force.
Amnesty International said Wednesday it was concerned that arrested demonstrators were at risk of torture or other ill treatment. It urged Iranian authorities to give the detainees access to their families, lawyers and any medical treatment they might need.
"Anyone detained solely for their peaceful expression of their views regarding the outcome of the election should be released immediately and unconditionally," it said. (Read Full Article)

Supreme Leader of Iran

Just a few weeks ago, they would have been virtually unthinkable acts of defiance in Iran: standing up to the supreme leader, ignoring his warnings to stay off the streets — then chanting for his death.
But the boisterous opposition protests thrusting Iran into its worst civil unrest since the 1979 Islamic Revolution have broken the taboo against direct criticism of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Now some are talking about him as a casualty of the crisis — and wondering if the aloof cleric's powerful office will survive after his eventual death.
For two decades, Khamenei's word has been law in Iran, where the supreme leader is considered by some as God's representative on Earth. Today he is reviled, not revered, by thousands of supporters of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, who claims he was defrauded in the June 12 presidential elections.
Unprecedented chants of "Death to Khamenei!" by some protesters underscore an astonishing blow to the 70-year-old cleric's standing.
His handling of the crisis and his support for the hard-line Ahmadinejad emboldened protesters to ignore his warning. And at the high echelons of the ruling elite, his actions have tempted two former presidents — reformist Mohammad Khatami and powerful insider Hashemi Rafsanjani — to come out in sympathy with the protesters, dealing another blow to Khamenei's standing.
Questioning the judgment and actions of a leader is not at all unusual in democracies, but it is a very serious step in Iran, where the supreme leader traditionally is a revered patriarchal figure whose followers wait on his every word.
But Khamenei has lost face. That has weakened him and is likely to prompt questions about his leadership for years to come.
Rafsanjani has not taken a major public role in the post-election meltdown, leading to suspicions that he is working behind the scenes with other powerful clerics who could be troubled by Khamenei's handling of the crisis.
"Rafsanjani has succeeded in knocking the supreme leader off his pedestal by revealing Ayatollah Khamenei to be a political partisan rather than an above-the-fray spiritual leader. In other words, the supreme leader has become a divider, not a uniter," said a report by EurasiaNet, a group operated by the Open Society Institute of George Soros.
Like his predecessor, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini — the father of the 1979 revolution — Khamenei came to his position under the doctrine of Welayet-al-Faqeeh: the right of the most learned to rule the nation. However, the doctrine is not universally accepted by Shiite clerics in Iran, and Khamenei himself was not a senior-enough cleric to get the job.
Khamenei has spent years building a power base in the armed forces and the powerful Revolutionary Guard, a paramilitary force that operates as the regime's chief protector. His authority has not rested on the religious credentials he is supposed to have as a supreme leader.
That means that what Khamenei lacks in charisma and scholarly pedigree, he makes up for with support in powerful institutions. (Read Full Article)

A video clip showing the violent death of a 26-year-old woman during Saturday's riots in Tehran has captured the world's attention and turned her into an icon for Iranians who are leveling an unprecedented challenge against their theocratic government.

Neda Agha Soltan, whose first name means "the calling" in Farsi, was killed by a gunshot to the heart, and her agonizing death in the street was filmed by at least two bystanders using cellphone cameras.

The clips have been distributed worldwide on sites such as YouTube and inside Iran via Bluetooth. Opposition protesters have carried pictures of her bloodied face to demonstrations and mourning ceremonies, where she is hailed as "a martyr" -- a status with deep resonance in Shiite Islam, Iran's dominant faith.
It is not clear who killed her. Bystanders say she was shot by members of Iran's voluntary paramilitary force, the Basij. The government has accused "terrorists" of killing at least 10 people during Saturday's protests by hundreds of thousands of Iranians who favor annulling Iran's disputed presidential election, which was officially decided in favor of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
BBC Persian, a Web site run by the BBC in Farsi, Iran's national language, quoted a man it described as Agha Soltan's fiance on Monday.

"Neda's goal was not to support Mousavi or Ahmadinejad, she was just in love with her country," said the man, Kasamin Makan. "She was a young woman, but gave a big lesson to everybody. ... Neda just wanted to have freedom for everybody."

Makan said that his fiancee was not participating in the protest when she was killed, but that she was simply stepping out of her car after being caught in traffic. (Read Full Article)

With heads and bodies covered in orthodox Muslim garb, Iranian women are standing up the the Supreme Leader Of Iran and the heartless and hard line autocracy he stands for. Abuse of women is generally accepted in Muslim culture but abused women eventually will fight back. I have the utmost respect for women that lay their lives and safety on the line for a high cause, such as black American women in the Civil Rights struggle in America some sixty years ago or the slain former Pakistan Prime Minister, wife and mother, Benazir Bhutto. The Ayatollah and his hard line, fundamentalist regime will ultimately fall before these brave Iranian women because right is on the side of Neda and the "lion women" of Iran, as I see it.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"Obama Don't Like The Invisible Hand?"

mothanskin — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 04:02:00 GMT

Fred Barnes Fred Barnes – Thu Jun 18, 1:57 pm ET
Is President Obama anti-business? The obvious answer is yes. Yet he insists he's a free-market guy who hates "meddling in the private sector" but has been forced to. So in deciding whether he's anti-business, let's be fair and judge Obama by nonideological and nonpartisan standards.
Members of his cabinet and White House staff come predominantly from government, academia, think tanks, and the law. True, several were business consultants, Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki served on corporate boards, and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel spent four years as an investment banker between government jobs.

But there's no one who ran a company, hired or fired workers, or was an entrepreneur. Obama doesn't qualify either. He worked as a lawyer, law school instructor, and community organizer. As a community organizer, he did many things, but starting a profit-making business and creating jobs weren't among them.

Now it's unfair to conclude solely on the basis of Obama's personnel decisions that he's anti-business. But his administration clearly isn't a hotbed of free marketers--quite the opposite. If any appointees sympathize with business and appreciate how free markets work, their influence has been minimal.
No doubt Obama would love to see the business community produce more jobs. But he and his congressional allies have done nothing to promote this and quite a bit to restrain it, despite the job-killing recession. This amazed Richard Posner. "Re-regulating banking, hauling bankers before congressional committees, passing laws tightening credit card lending, and capping bonuses all impede recovery," he wrote in the Wall Street Journal. "All that is for later, once the economy is back on track."
Take the matter of propping up General Motors and Chrysler. Rather than follow a free-market approach and allow the auto companies to sink or swim on their own, he's kept them alive with taxpayer subsidies and at the expense of their investors, a.k.a creditors. Fine, but he went on to punish GM and Chrysler investors and reward the United Auto Workers, a financial backer of Obama's presidential campaign last year.
Once it intervenes, the Obama administration invariably seeks to extend its control. After bailing out banks, Obama sought authority to seize any financial institution whose collapse might be "a systemic risk" to the economy. The Obama administration would decide if there's such a risk.

And now that troubled banks are paying back some of the bailout money, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was asked recently by Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina if those funds would be saved. Not quite, Geithner said. The administration retains the right to use an equal amount in future bailouts, he said.
The president's commencement address at Arizona State University in May, largely ignored by the media, was suffused with animus toward the profit motive. Obama did tell business majors to "go start a company," then quickly added, "Or why not help our struggling nonprofits find better, more effective ways to serve folks in need." It's clear which path Obama prefers.
Given the evidence, rendering a verdict on Obama and business is easy. Anti-business may be too crude a label. But this we can conclude: Obama doesn't trust free markets, he prefers government over business, he thinks Americans are too concerned about money, and he has a dark view of profits. A follower of Adam Smith, he's not. (Read Full Article)

In economics, the invisible hand is the term economists use to describe the self-regulating nature of the marketplace.The invisible hand is a metaphor coined by the economist Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations.
Adam Smith mentions the metaphor in Book IV of The Wealth of Nations, arguing that people in any society will certainly employ their capital in foreign trading only if the profits available by that method far exceed those available locally, and that in such a case it is better for society as a whole if they so did. Many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.
The theory of the Invisible Hand states that if each consumer is allowed to choose freely what to buy and each producer is allowed to choose freely what to sell and how to produce it, the market will settle on a product distribution and prices that are beneficial to all the individual members of a community, and hence to the community as a whole. The reason for this is that greed will drive actors to beneficial behavior. Efficient methods of production will be adopted in order to maximize profits. Low prices will be charged in order to undercut competitors. Investors will invest in those industries that are most urgently needed to maximize returns, and withdraw capital from those that are less efficient in creating value. Students will be guided to prepare for the most needed (and therefore most remunerative) careers. And all these effects will take place dynamically and automatically.
It also works as a balancing mechanism. For example, the inhabitants of a poor country will be willing to work very cheaply. Entrepreneurs can make great profits by building factories in poor countries. But because they increase the demand for labor, they will increase its price. And because the new producers will also become consumers, local businesses will have to hire more people in order to provide for them the things that they want to consume. As this process continues, the labor prices will eventually rise to the point at which there is no advantage for the foreign countries doing business in the formerly poor country. Overall, this mechanism will cause the local economy to function on its own.
In The Wealth of Nations Smith provides an example that illustrates the simplicity of the principle: It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. (Read Full Article)
Despite what President Obama says about not being against the free market, in my opinion, like his predecessor George Bush, President Obama is anti free market. I wonder did President Obama ever read Adam Smith's. "The Wealth Of Nations?" Adam Smith spoke of the "invisible hand" working in the free market for the good of all through every man doing what is in their own self interests. President Obama seems to think the government knows what is in the best interests of all. Obama obviously don't like the free market "invisible hand" of self regulation, market discipline, and the freedom to buy, sell, produce, succeed and fail on your own. As I see it, the human spirit thrives in the free market and stagnates under socialism or "Big Government" control and interference. I trust the free market "invisible hand". Wish we had a President who did also.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"More Power To The Fed?"

mothanskin — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:22:00 GMT

Senior U.S. lawmakers launched an assault on Thursday on the centerpiece of the Obama administration's financial reform plan -- giving the Federal Reserve new powers to police broad risks in the economy.
In addition to handling monetary policy, under the Obama plan the Fed would regulate "systemic risk" and try to prevent future financial crises, working with an inter-agency council.
"The Federal Reserve system was not designed to carry out the systemic risk oversight mission the administration proposes to give it," Senator Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, said at a hearing.
Concluding that the Fed is better qualified than any other government agency to handle such a job "represents a grossly inflated view of the Fed's expertise," Shelby said, reflecting the rapid spread of 'Fed fatigue' on Capitol Hill.
A day after President Barack Obama unveiled his plan, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was defending it in testimony before the banking committee in the first of more than a dozen hearings before Congress by mid-July.
Geithner urged Congress to act quickly on regulatory reform in response to the crisis, which has focused public and government attention worldwide on oversight of banks and markets.
Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman told Reuters he and other lawmakers were examining whether the Obama plan gives the Fed too much power. "We are going to make some recommendations about combining different existing agencies," he said.
"I would like to put more of the banking regulatory agencies together ... We ought to put together the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the SEC."
Senate Banking Committee members with questions about designating the Fed as systemic risk regulator included Republicans Jim Bunning and David Vitter.
Shelby said the Fed could be stretched too thin by taking on the job. He questioned whether the Fed could have detected and averted problems like last year's collapse of former Wall Street giant Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc or the taxpayer bailout of American International Group Inc. (Read Full Article)
"The most unfair practices will be banned," Obama said. "Those ridiculous contracts with pages of fine print that no one can figure out, those things will be a thing of the past. And enforcement will be the rule, not the exception."

Consumer groups hailed the plan.

"This is a dramatic shift in the focus of financial regulation, which should lead to a credit marketplace which is easier for consumers to understand and safer," said Travis Plunkett, legislative director for the Consumer Federation of America.

But banks and other Wall Street firms that earn billions of dollars on consumer financial products quickly attacked the proposal, setting the stage for what is likely to be a hard-fought legislative battle.

"We intend to take our case to Congress to explain why we believe adding new layers to a broken regulatory system is not the answer," said David Hirschmann, president of the Center for Capital Markets at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The emphasis on consumer safeguards is part of the blueprint Obama unveiled formally Wednesday for the most dramatic changes in financial rules since the Great Depression.

It calls for tough new requirements on companies whose failure would threaten the economy, new oversight of complex financial derivatives and stepped-up rules for hedge funds and private equity firms.

One of its most controversial provisions is the creation of an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which would assume the watchdog duties now spread across several regulatory agencies and that administration officials say are often ignored. (Read Full Article)
Section 5 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 states that the Federal Reserve Banks are owned, through stock issuance, by private member banks. The issue of private ownership has been one of controversy for numerous reasons.
Dennis Kucinich has repeatedly stated, "The Federal Reserve is no more federal than Federal Express" Kucinich also stated that "we need to have public control over this if we're going to have public policies in the public interest."
One of the first criticisms of the private nature of the Federal Reserve system was Charles August Lindbergh who criticized the problem of private banks working against the best interests of the citizens: "The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board administers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money."
On November 7, 2008, Bloomberg News requested details of Fed lending under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit seeking to force disclosure. The Federal Reserve response to this request was reported by Bloomberg News: The Fed responded December 8, saying it’s allowed to withhold internal memos as well as information about trade secrets and commercial information. The institution confirmed that a records search found 231 pages of documents pertaining to some of the requests.
Quite a few Congressmen who have been involved in the House and Senate Banking and Currency Committees have been open critics of the Federal Reserve, including Chairmen Wright Patman, Henry Reuss, and Henry B. Gonzalez. Currently, Congressman Ron Paul is the ranking member of the Monetary Policy Subcommittee and he is a staunch opponent of the Federal Reserve System. During each Congress Paul introduces a bill to abolish the Federal Reserve System (H.R. 2755—110th Congress, H.R. 2778—108th Congress, H.R. 5356—107th Congress, H.R. 1148—106th Congress), although he has yet to have any hearings held on his legislation or to gather any cosponsors. (Read Full Article)

The Obama Administration's intention to give more regulatory powers to the private Federal Reserve Banks is thankfully meeting resistance in Congress from both Republicans and Democrats. In my opinion, the private Federal Reserve Banks need to be audited and regulated themselves, if not abolished. Timothy Geithner, the tax evading Treasury Secretary, was the president of a Federal Reserve Bank before his appointment and he is nothing more than a Fed shill, as I see it. The history of the Fed is one of deceit, secrecy and manipulation. More power to the Fed? Hell no!

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"Obama Care And Costs Be Damned"

mothanskin — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:33:00 GMT

Hoping to make history, the Senate set off on its major overhaul of the nation's health care system Wednesday, but its first steps were quickly overtaken by fresh cost concerns and partisan anger. An ambitious timetable that called for completing committee action in early summer seemed in danger of slipping away.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee began work on a bill encompassing President Barack Obama's top legislative priority. It marked the first time since President Bill Clinton's ill-starred attempt in the early 1990s that Congress was tackling such a broad overhaul.
But the more important Senate Finance Committee announced it would delay action, as senators sought to retool their proposals to slash the cost by more than one-third, from an intial $1.6 trillion over 10 years, to less than $1 trillion. Of the five major panels working on health care, Finance has the best odds of coming up with a bipartisan proposal that could overcome gathering opposition.
Lobbyists representing every nook and cranny of the economy were on high alert — even if they were on their best behavior.
Majority Democrats running the Finance Committee have told lobbyists that their views will be taken into account as long as their groups don't mount public campaigns against the legislation, numerous lobbyists say. So far, health industry groups have not launched aggressive attacks against Democrats' emerging plans.
Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said the goal is a bill that costs less than $1 trillion over 10 years and is fully paid for. "We'll be ready when we're ready, but we're not there yet."
The panel's top Republican, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, cited three major sticking points: cost, whether to create a new public insurance plan to compete with private insurers and whether to require employers to offer health care or face fines.
The measure before Kennedy's committee would cost about $1 trillion over 10 years, but leave 37 million people uninsured, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Parts of the draft bill have yet to be finalized, so its true costs and benefits are not fully understood. (Read Full Article)
Our current private health insurance system is the most costly, wasteful, complicated, and bureaucratic in the world. But in America, the people who have to navigate that maze are the lucky ones. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home base, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses. That is six times the number who died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Despite the fact that we spend almost twice as much per person on healthcare as any other country, our healthcare outcomes lag behind many other nations. According to the World Health Organization, the United States ranks 37th in terms of health system performance and we are far behind many other countries in terms of such important indices as infant mortality, life expectancy, and preventable deaths.
The main reason we get such bad results is that the function of private health insurance companies is not to provide quality healthcare for all, but to make huge profits for those who own the companies. With thousands of different health benefit programs designed to maximize profits, private health insurance companies spend an incredible 30 percent of each healthcare dollar on administration and billing, exorbitant CEO compensation packages, advertising, lobbying, and campaign contributions. Public programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the department of Veterans Affairs are administered for far less. (Read Full Article)
The fact is, the Democrats' proposals are a liberal wish list of expansions of the role of government in health care, combining an array of taxes, regulations, incentives, and mandates aimed over time to create a massive and unfunded new entitlement that would limit patient choices, ration care, and bankrupt the Treasury. The Democrats' plan would force everyone into the system through an individual mandate and lead employers to drop their health coverage; their new public insurance plan would then price private insurers out of the game and attract the refugees from private coverage into the public system. All of this would put us well on the road to government-run health care.

At the core of this scheme, and of the growing political restlessness about it, is the proposed government insurance "option"--essentially a new insurance company run by the federal government. Its defenders argue it would have no inherent advantage over private insurers and would simply spur them to improve their offerings through healthy competition. As President Obama put it last week, "One of the options in the exchange should be a public insurance option . . . [because] if the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep them honest and help keep prices down."

It's an interesting statement. We had thought the role of government was to set rules for honest private competition, which does keep prices down and improve products. And there are reforms that could improve the important rule-setting role government should play, and could increase private competition and transparency. But Obama wants government to be one of the competitors--in the alleged interest of honesty and price reduction. When has a government alternative produced those results? Clearly the point is to use the power of the government to impose price controls and override state rules in order to undersell private insurers. The public plan is a gradual path to single payer health care, aimed at moving American health care in a European or Canadian direction.
This has made the Obama plan increasingly controversial, if not imperiled. Essentially every Republican in Washington has expressed firm opposition to a government plan, and a growing number of Democrats are doing the same. Nebraska senator Ben Nelson has called it a deal-breaker. Louisiana's Mary Landrieu said last week she would not vote for it. Many other Democrats in the Senate and the House are wary, to say the least.
The public plan is not the only important question in the health care debate. There are many other strong reasons for stopping a plan that would cost at least $1.5 trillion, create a huge and growing new entitlement without paying for it, impose great financial burdens on employers and individuals, displace millions of families who are happy with their existing health care arrangements, lead to increasing rationing of care, and do very little else to control health care costs. (Read Full Article)

Clearly America is in dire need of health care reform. As I see it, such health care reform does not mandate the government expand it's role as health care provider beyond the coverage for the elderly, poor and disabled provided in Medicare and Medicaid. If the federal government is struggling to fund Medicare and Medicaid at present, how is it going to fund any expansion of these health care entitlements? Private health insurers can and must bring down the costs of health care coverage and with the threat of competition from the government there is great motivation to do so now, because private insurers know they cannot compete with nonprofit government health insurance. In my opinion, deregulating the health insurance industry to allow private doctors, hospitals and clinics to offer health insurance would significantly bring down health insurance costs. The federal government needs to shore up Medicaid and Medicare before before trying to insure any Americans other than the poor, elderly and disabled. The great mind of President Obama could find free market solutions to rising health care costs if he really believed in the free market. Unfortunately the Obama Administration has a far left liberal agenda and ideology for America, costs and all else be damned, as I see it.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"Will Israel Ever Do Right By The Palestinians?"

mothanskin — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:36:00 GMT

Mon Jun 15, 11:04 AM ET Palestinian protesters hold up a huge national flag during a demonstration in Gaza city on June 13 to call for reconciliation between the rival Palestinian factions. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's conditional acceptance of a Palestinian state came under fire on Monday, with the Arab world and Palestinians saying it killed chances of a peace deal.(AFP/File/Mahmud Hams)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's grudging endorsement of Palestinian independence — couched in layers of stifling conditions — does not necessarily signal the hawk-to-moderate transformation that hard-line Israeli leaders before him have undergone.
Netanyahu's major policy speech was as notable for what it did not say, as for what it did: No acceptance of previous peace strategies. No reference to any Muslim connection to the land. No talk of uprooting Jewish settlements to make room for a would-be Palestinian state.
And he pointedly avoided mentioning an Arab peace initiative that offers to trade normalized ties with the entire Arab world for a complete Israeli withdrawal from lands captured in 1967, a demand Israel rejects.
Palestinians called Netanyahu's speech a nonstarter that will not serve as a basis for talks, and Arab leaders rejected it as disappointing and not conducive to peace.
Netanyahu's demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people — essentially giving up any right of return for Palestinian refugees — "scuttles the chances for peace," Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said Monday.
"The call to amend the Arab initiative and drop the right of return will not find anyone in Egypt or elsewhere to agree to it," the state-run MENA news agency quoted Mubarak as saying.
The prime minister said existing settlements should be allowed to expand while negotiations proceed. He spoke at length about Jews' biblical right to the Land of Israel, Palestinians' refusal to recognize Israel's legitimacy and the dangers Israel faces if it withdraws from territory.
He demanded that Palestinians not only recognize Israel's right to exist, but to exist as a Jewish state — another way of saying Palestinian refugees must give up their hopes of returning to lost homes inside Israel.
He said Jerusalem — claimed by both peoples — must remain the undivided capital of Israel. He said a future Palestinian state must not have an army and must be "without control of its airspace." (Read FullArticle)
US envoy George Mitchell called Tuesday for a "prompt resumption" of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, claiming regional support for President Barack Obama has helped boost peace prospects.
Mitchell, speaking at his first press conference in Washington since his appointment in January, gave no time frame but hoped his preliminary discussions aimed at reviving the negotiations would conclude in a matter of weeks.
"We all share an obligation to help create the conditions for the prompt resumption and the early conclusion of negotiations," the special Middle East envoy said.
The peace negotiations stalled before Obama succeeded George W. Bush as president, when Israel launched a 22-day war against the radical Palestinian movement Hamas in the Gaza Strip in late December.
Although there have been many false starts to end the 60-plus year Arab-Israeli conflict, Mitchell said peace is "possible" and there were new reasons to be optimistic.
He noted a "dramatic difference" in regional attitudes toward peace because of Obama's early commitment to and total personal involvement in the search for a solution.
Mitchell said Washington does not see Israel's goal of a demilitarized state and a viable Palestinian state as "irreconcilable."
He saw Netanyahu's statements as a Jewish state as a goal rather than a "precondition" for negotiations. (Read Full Article)
More Israelis support the two-state solution after U.S. President Barack Obama delivered a speech in Cairo, showed a recent poll sent to Xinhua on Sunday.

Following Obama's speech on June 4, Israelis' support for the two-state solution increased slightly from 59 percent to 63 percent according to the poll, which was conducted by the Harry S.Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem between June 7 and 8.

The poll showed Obama's speech had great impact on Israelis' expectations as to the chances for a final status settlement with the Palestinians and for the establishment of a Palestinian state. (Read Full Article)

Will Israel ever do right by the Palestinians? Under the pretense of security concerns, Israel has no intention of leaving their settlements in the West Bank or giving up their control of Jerusalem. Though hard line Zionist, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is giving lip service to a Two State solution, his vision of a Palestinian state is nothing more than Palestine being the vassal of Israel. The hard line Zionists feed off of the Islamic hard line rhetoric of Hamas and Iran. Words are important. Right when there are Arab Muslims ready to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, Netanyahu adds the caveat of acknowledging Israel as a Jewish state which implies no right of return for Palestinians. Will Israel ever do right by the Palestinians?

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"Another Revolution In Iran?"

mothanskin — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:45:00 GMT

Mon Jun 15, 4:02 PM A supporter of former presidential candidate Mirhossein Mousavi flashes victory sign while holding a campaign poster during a rally in Tehran, June 15, 2009.REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubazl (IRAN POLITICS ELECTIONS)

How do you count almost 40 million handwritten paper ballots in a matter of hours and declare a winner? That's a key question in Iran's disputed presidential election. International polling experts and Iran analysts said the speed of the vote count, coupled with a lack of detailed election data normally released by officials, was fueling suspicion around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's landslide victory.
Iran's supreme leader endorsed the hard-line president's re-election the morning after Friday's vote, calling it a "divine assessment" and appearing to close the door on challenges from Iran's reformist camp. But on Monday, after two days of rioting in the streets, he ordered an investigation into the allegations of fraud.
Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad's reformist challenger, claims he was robbed of the presidency and has called for the results to be canceled.
One of the central questions was how 39.2 million paper ballots could be counted by hand and final results announced by authorities in Tehran in just over 12 hours. Past elections took at least twice as long.
A new computerized system might have helped speed the process in urban centers, where most Iranians live, though it is unclear if that system was extended to every small town and village. And each ballot — on which a candidate's name was written in — would still have to be counted by hand before any data could be entered into a computer, aggregated and transmitted to the Interior Ministry in Tehran.
"I wouldn't say it's completely impossible," Meyer-Resende said. "In the case of Iran, of course, you wonder with logistical challenges whether they could do it so fast."
Susan Hyde, an assistant political science professor at Yale University who has taken part in election monitoring missions in developing countries for the Carter Center, agreed that would be uncharacteristically fast.
"If they're still using hand counting, that would be very speedy, unusually speedy," she said.
Ahmadinejad, who has significant support among the poor and in the countryside, said Sunday that the vote was "real and free" and insisted the results were fair and legitimate. (Read Full Article)

In a massive outpouring reminiscent of the Islamic Revolution three decades ago, hundreds of thousands of Iranians streamed through the capital Monday, and the fist-waving protesters denounced President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim to victory in a disputed election.
Standing on rooftops, pro-government gunmen opened fire on a group of protesters who had tried to storm the militia's compound. One man was killed and several others were wounded in the worst violence since the disputed election Friday.
Angry men showed their bloody palms after cradling the dead and wounded who had been part of a crowd that stretched more than five miles (nearly 10 kilometers) supporting reform leader Mir Hossein Mousavi.
The huge rally reinforced what has become increasingly clearer since the election: the opposition forces rallying behind Mousavi show no signs of backing down. Their resolve appears to have pushed Iran's Islamic establishment into attempts to cool the tensions after days of unrest.
Police and other security forces stood by quietly — some sitting on stoops with their batons and shields resting behind them as the marchers swallowed the streets in parts of Tehran. Estimates put the turnout at hundreds of thousands overflowing the square, where crowds of 200,000 have filled the plaza in the past.
Mousavi made his first public appearance since the polls closed, and he launched his claims that the vote was rigged to re-elect the hard-line president.
Protests also spread across the country. Witnesses told the AP that pro-Mousavi demonstrators clashed with police in the historic city of Esfahan and the northeastern city of Mashhad, a conservative bastion with one of Iran's most holy Shiite shrines.
This is the type spreading unrest most feared by Iran's non-elected ruling clerics, who control all important decisions but are rarely drawn directly into political disputes. A long and bitter movement against Ahmadinejad could push the dissent past the presidency and target the theocracy itself.
At the rally, Mousavi had strong words for those standing in his way for his demands to cancel elections, including the ruling clerics.
"I am ready to pay any price to carry the ideals of you, dear people," said Mousavi, who wore a gray striped shirt.
"We must regain our trampled rights and stop this lie and stand up to fraud and this astonishing charade," he said, looking out over the huge crowd and raising his arms in salute. "Otherwise, nothing will remain of people's trust in the government and the ruling system."
He also said he has little hope that the Guardian Council will annul the vote. The crowd roared back: "Long live Mousavi." (Read Full Article)

Fri Jun 12, 1:12 AM ET Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei casts his ballot during the Iranian presidential election, in Tehran June 12, 2009.REUTERS/Caren Firouz (IRAN POLITICS ELECTIONS IMAGES OF THE DAY)

A look at the power structure in Iran.
SUPREME LEADER AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI: Wields control over every major decision either directly or through a network of hand-picked loyalists and institutions, including the powerful Revolutionary Guard, the judiciary and intelligence services.
GUARDIAN COUNCIL: Group of 12 experts in Islamic law who approve all candidates for high elected office and can veto parliamentary bills considered in violation of Iran's Islamic constitution.
PRESIDENT: The president's powers are limited by the ruling clerics. The president helps direct economic policies, domestic social programs, education plans and some public works. The president also has some voice in the level of freedoms such as media and political openness, but can be overruled by the ruling clerics using the judiciary or Revolutionary Guard. The president represents Iran in many high-profile international forums and talks, but the ruling clerics set all important foreign and defense policies.
PARLIAMENT: Its 290 members are elected every four years and have wide powers to set economic and social policies, but officials loyal to the supreme leader can block legislation. The next elections are 2012.
EXPEDIENCY COUNCIL: Mediates between the parliament and Guardian Council, but often favors the supreme leader's views. All members are hand-picked by Khamenei and it is in effect an advisory body to the supreme leader.
ASSEMBLY OF EXPERTS: An elected body of 86 clerics that has official role of overseeing the supreme leader's performance, but main job is to select a successor after his death. (The Article Source)

Another revolution in Iran may be in the offing. As I see it, the speed of which the paper ballots were tabulated is strong evidence of egregious election fraud against Mir Hussein Mousavi, the reformist candidate running against hard line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The cleric oligarchy that essentially rules Iran's Islamic democracy now is in the delicate position of stopping the election protest without angering people to the point of armed rebellion. As I see it, there are millions of secular Iranians who don't want an Islamic theocracy in the first place, particularly the young and educated Iranians. The are millions of Iranians who fear Ahmadinejad's hard line rhetoric will get them bombed by Israel or America. Violent attempts to squash the legitimate dissent of a people will only inflame the glowing embers of a potential revolution. In my opinion, the Ayatullah and the ruling clerics in Iran would best serve their own survival by annulling the present election results and having a new election, otherwise another revolution is on the way in Iran.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"Obama Fires IG For Doing His Job?"

mothanskin — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:36:00 GMT

An inspector general fired by President Barack Obama said Friday he acted "with the highest integrity" in investigating AmeriCorps and other government-funded national service programs. Gerald Walpin said in an interview with The Associated Press that he reported facts and conclusions "in an honest and full way" while serving as inspector general at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
In a letter to Congress on Thursday, Obama said he had lost confidence in Walpin and was removing him from the position.
Walpin defended his work on Friday. "I know that I and my office acted with the highest integrity as an independent inspector general should act," he said.
Obama's move follows an investigation by Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star. Johnson and a nonprofit education academy he founded ultimately agree to repay half of $847,000 in grants it had received from AmeriCorps.
Walpin said he gave the integrity committee "a full and complete response" that was also signed by several people who worked on the case. "I have no question but that we acted totally properly," he said in the interview.
Grassley had written Obama a letter pointing to a law requiring that Congress be given the reasons an inspector general is fired. He cited a Senate report saying the requirement is designed to ensure that inspectors general are not removed for political reasons.
Grassley said Walpin had identified millions of dollars in AmeriCorps funds that were wasted or misspent and "it appears he has been doing a good job."
The inspector general found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.
In settling the case, the government agreed to lift its suspension of any future grants to the academy and Johnson agreed to immediately repay $73,000 in past grants. The academy was given 10 years to repay the remaining $350,000.
Brown said at the time of the settlement that prosecutors determined there was no fraud, but rather a culture of "sloppiness" in St. HOPE's record-keeping. (Read Full Article)
AmeriCorps is a U.S. federal government program that was created under President Bill Clinton by the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993. More than 70,000 individuals currently join AmeriCorps annually, totaling more than 500,000 past and current members since 1994. The work done by these groups ranges from public education to environmental clean-up.
AmeriCorps is a division of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which also oversees the Senior Corps and Learn and Serve America. Collectively, these three programs represent a total of more than 2 million members in service each year. AmeriCorps itself is split into three main divisions, including AmeriCorps State and National, VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America), and NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps).
Research has illustrated that AmeriCorps programs have a variety of effects on civic education, education, and public service.
While ongoing discussion has occurred about the range and efficacy of evaluating the successes of AmeriCorps, there has been a variety of documentation supporting the program. AmeriCorps provided fiscal and personnel to support the start-up of innovative new national programs, including City Year, Public Allies and Teach for America. It also brought vital resources to established programs, including Boys and Girls Club, Big Brothers Big Sisters and the American Red Cross.
AmeriCorps is reported to increase the effectiveness of community service. Successes for individual AmeriCorps members include increasing their commitment to community service, increasing community-based activism, connection to their communities, knowledge of community problems, engagement in the political process, and voting participation. Additionally, according to a 2007 study released by the Corporation for National and Community Service, a majority of AmeriCorps alumni within the study period claimed they had gained "useful" life and job skills, such as leadership, teamwork, time-management, and hands-on experience in a field of interest. The study further reported that 71% of alumni were incentivized to join by the prospect of earning a Segal AmeriCorps Education Award; 41% of AmeriCorps members went on to receive a 4-year college degree within three years of entering AmeriCorps.
According to a 1998 report from Citizens Against Government Waste, AmeriCorps' operational cost amounted to $27,000 per volunteer per year.
In 2003, it was reported that AmeriCorps violated federal law by hiring more people than Congress had authorized, and had spent more money than was legally allowed.
In 1995, AmeriCorps gave a $1.1 million grant to an organization called Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The grant eventually had to be returned.
In an article entitled "AmeriCorps: Six years of waste and fraud", Bovard reported that "in Indianapolis, AmeriCorps recruits busied themselves painting a giant mural on the side of a pawnshop." The article also states that as of 2000 nearly half of all AmeriCorps members quit the program before finishing their term of service.
Articles suggest that AmeriCorps volunteers assist citizens with applying for welfare, food stamps, and public housing, and one organization who works with AmeriCorps also lobbies the government for more rent control and public housing.
AmeriCorps gave a grant to an organization called Mississippi Action for Community Education, or MACE, which is located in Greenville, Mississippi, one of the poorest cities in the United States. Bovard described MACE's headquarters as "one of the fanciest buildings in town. The plush leather chairs in the waiting room were in stark contrast to the shabbiness of the neighborhood. Uncle Sam has obviously been good to MACE, which has received money from several federal programs over the years." (Read Full Article)

Inspector Generals are appointed by the government to prevent fraud and mishandling of taxpayers money. AmeriCorps, a federal government agency that basically funds community activists or organizations, has a history of misspending the government funds given them. President Obama, himself a proud former community organizer, has fired the Inspector General over Americorp for ostensibly doing his job, in charging the nonprofit educational agency of Sacramento, CA mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter, with misspending funds. Something doesn't smell right about the firing of Gerald Walpin by the Obama Administration. Let us hope Congress does a thorough investigation and exonerate either the Inspector General or the President. Firing IG's requires a legitimate reason, Mr. President.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"Is Obama Care Open To Discussion?"

mothanskin — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:35:00 GMT

Sat Jun 6, 10:50 AM ET File photo shows a doctor treating a patient at hospital in California. President Barack Obama urged Congress to move ahead on health care reform, arguing that any change in the current system should lower the cost of services, improve their quality and protect consumer choice.(AFP/Getty Images/File/David Mcnew)

A potential compromise emerged Wednesday on one of the most vexing issues of the health care overhaul debate — whether to create a new government-sponsored health plan to compete with private insurers. The compromise offered by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., would create health care cooperatives owned by groups of residents and small businesses, similar to how electric or other cooperatives operate.
They'd be nonprofit, and without the government involvement that troubles Republicans and business groups about the public plan options.
The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, said Wednesday the idea could be key to a bipartisan health bill. Baucus raised it in a meeting with President Barack Obama, saying later that Obama showed interest. Baucus' Republican counterpart, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, also said the concept had potential.
"It's a way to bridge the gap," Baucus told reporters.
Many Democrats, including Obama, strongly favor a new public insurance plan that would, for the first time, offer government-sponsored health care to Americans not eligible for Medicare, Medicaid or other programs. Democrats say this would keep costs down for consumers.
Most Republicans and business groups are just as ardently opposed, saying that private insurers would end up going out of business, unable to compete with a government plan that didn't have to make a profit.
Conrad's plan attempts to satisfy both sides. Profit-making insurance companies wouldn't run the show, but there also wouldn't be the federal government backing that Republicans fear would eliminate fair competition with private companies. The co-ops could get federal seed money, Conrad said, but that would be the end of federal involvement. The co-ops would negotiate directly with medical providers.
Obama is taking a more forceful approach in the health care debate. (Read Full Article)

By Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)
Washington, DC — To be effective, health care reform must include insurance coverage for everyone, encourage prevention measures, and reform the inefficiencies in our system to ensure the future strength of our economy. CPR—Coverage, Prevention, Reform—is a plan I have proposed that sets up a system where every American will be required to purchase meaningful health insurance to ensure each family will be protected against bankruptcy if a family member becomes seriously ill or injured. No family should lose their home or life-savings because of illness or injury. For those who may not be able to afford this plan, you will have assistance getting coverage.
This proposal also aggressively focuses on the need for more robust preventive care and creates incentives for people and businesses to work toward better health sooner, rather than later when such measures may not work and crisis treatment is much more costly. By offering first-dollar coverage for early health screenings and immunizations, this program will create the foundation for healthy lifestyles and reduce the need for later treatments. Further, by rewarding employees for taking part in employer-sponsored programs, which often include programs to help people quit smoking, fitness club membership options, and affordable access to programs like Weight Watchers, CPR creates incentives that will motivate Americans to take control of and improve their personal health.
We already have more than $38 trillion in promised Medicare benefits over the next 75 years that we don’t know how to pay for. The President himself has stated, "The biggest threat to our nation’s balance sheet is the skyrocketing cost of health care." We don’t need more health care that spends more taxpayer dollars to grow government; we need better health care that offers Americans peace of mind and quality care at prices they can afford. (Read Full Article)
As the health care debate heats up, the American Medical Association is letting Congress know that it will oppose creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan, which President Obama and many other Democrats see as an essential element of legislation to remake the health care system.
While committed to the goal of affordable health insurance for all, the association had said in a general statement of principles that health services should be “provided through private markets, as they are currently.” It is now reacting, for the first time, to specific legislative proposals being drafted by Congress.
“The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.”
If private insurers are pushed out of the market, the group said, “the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers.”
The A.M.A., an umbrella group for 180 medical societies, does not speak for all doctors. One group, Physicians for a National Health Program, supports a single-payer system of insurance, in which a single public agency would pay for health services, but most care would still be delivered by private doctors and hospitals. In recent years, some doctors have become so fed up with the administrative hassles of private insurance that they are looking for alternatives.
America’s Health Insurance Plans, a lobby for insurers, said Tuesday that the government plan proposed by some Senate Democrats could “dismantle employer-based coverage and significantly increase costs for those who remain in private coverage.” (Read Full Article)

Thank God, there is resistance to Obama Care or government run health care in America, despite the attempt to ramrod dying Senator Ted Kennedy's proposals for government run insurance through Congress with little or no debate and discussion. If the government can't effectively run health care for senior and disabled citizens now, in the form of Medicaid and Medicare, how can government managed health care for every citizen be any better? When there is no competition and "no bid contracts", the result is high prices and bad service, especially when the government is involved. There are alternative ways to bring health care down to where it is affordable for all, without taxpayer money, in my opinion. The $64,000 question is whether President Obama will allow these alternative proposals to take shape and be discussed or will it have to be "Big Government's" way or no way at all? Time will tell.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"The Quandary Of Gitmo Detainees"

mothanskin — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:02:00 GMT

Under heavy guard, a Guantanamo Bay detainee walked into a civilian U.S. courtroom for the first time Tuesday, underscoring the Obama administration's determination to close the Cuban prison and hold trials here despite Republican alarms about bringing terror suspects to America.
Ahmed Ghailani, a Tanzanian accused in two American Embassy bombings a decade ago, pleaded not guilty — in English — in a brief but historic federal court hearing that transported him from open-ended military detention to the civilian criminal justice system.
President Barack Obama has said keeping Ghailani from coming to the United States "would prevent his trial and conviction." Taking a drastically different stance, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio labeled Tuesday's move "the first step in the Democrats' plan to import terrorists into America."
Ghailani, accused of being a bomb-maker, document forger and aide to Osama bin Laden, was brought to New York to await trial in connection with al-Qaida bombings that killed 224 people — including 12 Americans — at the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998.
Ghailani's trial will be an important test case for Obama's plan to close the detention center at Guantanamo in seven months and bring some of the terror suspects there to trial.
Attorney General Eric Holder said, "The Justice Department has a long history of securely detaining and successfully prosecuting terror suspects through the criminal justice system, and we will bring that experience to bear in seeking justice in this case."
The U.S. response to the 2001 terror attacks — including the opening of the Guantanamo detention center — could also complicate Ghailani's case, as defense lawyers are likely to mount legal challenges based on the circumstances of his capture, detention and treatment over the years.
Justice Department officials would not say Tuesday what would be done with Ghailani if he were acquitted, but in past cases a non-citizen defendant would be turned over to immigration authorities for deportation. (Read Full Article)
NAME: Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani.
BIRTH: Born around 1974 in Zanzibar, Tanzania.
AL-QAIDA LINKS: Ghailani allegedly helped coordinate the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Prosecutors say he later traveled to Afghanistan, trained at an al-Qaida camp and became a top document forger for the network following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. He was also allegedly an aide to Osama bin Laden.
HIS VERSION: He told a military panel at Guantanamo that he unwittingly delivered the explosives used by others for the bombing in Tanzania and apologized to the U.S. government. He said he went to the al-Qaida camp because he wanted military training for self-defense.
DETENTION: Ghailani was arrested after a gunbattle in Gujrat in eastern Pakistan in July 2004. He was held in secret CIA custody and then was transferred to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in September 2006. U.S. marshals took him to New York on Tuesday. (The Article Source)
The Harper government has rejected a request from the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama to accept a group of Chinese Muslim detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay.
A spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Thursday night that Ottawa's position on the Uighurs remains unchanged: Canada is not willing to accept any Guantanamo detainees as refugees.
We had a previous request from the Bush administration as well," said Kory Teneycke. "But given that these detainees have no link with Canada . . . I do not see our policy changing. I don't see us taking any detainees from Guantanamo."
The U.S. base is still holding 17 ethnic Uighurs, despite the fact that a U.S. judge last year cleared them of posing any terrorist threat to the United States and ordered them released.
China has demanding their return, claiming that they are terrorists who are seeking an independent Muslim homeland in the northwestern part of the country. (Read Full Article)
In exchange for development aid worth $200 million, the government of the former US dependency is understood to be willing to accept some if not all of the 17 ethnic Uighur detainees who have become a symbol of Mr Obama's difficulties with closing the controversial prison.
A federal judge in Washington last year ordered them to be released in the United States after the Pentagon determined they were not "enemy combatants", only for an appeals court to halt the order and leave the Uighurs in legal limbo.
American states that were initially amenable to accepting the group have got cold feet, while none of the major US allies have been willing to help. Washington has determined the Uighurs ca o't be returned to China because they might be persecuted. All had reportedly trained at terror camps in Afghanistan and allegedly belonged to a separatist movement in the western Xinjiang region. (Read Full Article)

What to do with acquitted Gitmo detainees? Whether truly innocent or guilty of terrorist activities in the past, if the evidence warrants acquittal the detainees must be set free. In all probability if they weren't terrorists before their detention they are now after their unjust detention. Understandably no nation wants to give refuge to these released detainees, unless the US pays for it, as it is doing with the Chinese Muslims. Acquitted detainees should be released to the country they are citizens of, period. As I see it, the incarcerated convicted terrorists make the city holding them, targets for terrorist attacks. Guantanamo Bay should remain the now humane detention camp for convicted terrorists, as I see it. Shutting down Guantanamo Bay will not soften the heart of any radical Muslim terrorist. Maintaining Guantanamo Bay is a national security issue, as I see it.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"Is Buy American Really Good For America?"

mothanskin — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:58:00 GMT

The United States' largest trading partners are warning that protectionist moves by Congress could poison global trade relations, despite President Barack Obama's assurances that he wants to keep U.S. markets open.
Businesses in the European Union and Canada complain they have been shut out of U.S. markets because of the "Buy American" provision in the massive stimulus bill, passed in February, which requires the use of U.S.-manufactured products.
EU and Canadian officials worry the practice is widening, as Congress is considering adding similar measures to other spending bills.
Buy American supporters want to make sure that the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars being spent to revive the economy create jobs at home. The U.S. unemployment rate is at its highest level in 25 years.
Many U.S. exporters fear the provisions will backfire, costing American jobs as other countries retaliate. Some municipalities in Canada have begun organizing boycotts of U.S. products, and EU and Canadian officials say they are reviewing their options.
The Buy American provision in the stimulus bill favored U.S. steel, iron and manufactured goods for government projects financed by the bill. Obama negotiated a softening of the bill to ensure that trade agreements would not be violated.
However, the trading partners say that even without violating agreements, such legislation could spark tit-for-tat retaliation that could poison global trade relations and lead to rising protectionism. They argue that the United States, which has the world's largest economy, must lead the world out of its current economic troubles. They point to the role that protectionism played in deepening the Great Depression in the 1930s. (Read Full Article)

Willis C. Hawley (left) and Reed Smoot in April 1929, shortly before the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act passed the House of Representatives.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (sometimes known as the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act; officially the Tariff Act of 1930) was an act signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels. In the United States 1,028 economists signed a petition against this legislation, and after it was passed, many countries retaliated with their own increased tariffs on U.S. goods, and American exports and imports were reduced by more than half.
The act was originated by Senator Reed Smoot, a Republican from Utah, and Representative Willis C. Hawley, a Republican from Oregon.
When campaigning for president during 1928, one of Herbert Hoover's many campaign promises to help beleaguered farmers had been to increase tariffs of agricultural products. Hoover won, and Republicans obtained comfortable majorities in the House and the Senate during 1928. Hoover then asked Congress for an increase of tariff rates for agricultural goods and a decrease of rates for industrial goods.
The House passed a version of the act in May 1929, increasing tariffs on agricultural and industrial goods alike. The Senate debated its bill until March 1930, with many Senators trading votes based on their states' industries. The conference committee then aligned the two versions, largely by moving to the greater House tariffs.
In May 1930, a petition was signed by 1028 economists in the United States asking President Herbert Hoover to veto the legislation, organized by Paul Douglas, Irving Fisher, James TFG Wood, Frank Graham, Ernest Patterson, Henry Seager, Frank Taussig, and Clair Wilcox. Automobile executive Henry Ford spent an evening at the White House trying to convince Hoover to veto the bill, calling it "an economic stupidity". J. P. Morgan's chief executive Thomas W. Lamont said he "almost went down on my knees to beg Herbert Hoover to veto the asinine Hawley-Smoot tariff."
Hoover opposed the bill and called it "vicious, extortionate, and obnoxious" because he felt it would undermine the commitment he had pledged to international cooperation. Later events would reveal Hoover was right: the international community levied their own tariffs in retaliation after the bill had become law. However, in spite of his opposition, Hoover yielded to influence from his own party and business leaders and signed the bill. (Read Full Article)

Members of Congress often encourage us to "buy American" during their speeches on the House floor. Some members regularly place a "buy American" clause in various trade-related bills, seeking to protect domestic jobs by encouraging the purchase of American goods. Ironically, however, many of these same legislators vote to prohibit American companies from gaining access to new markets overseas. They do so by supporting our senseless embargo policies, which simply help our foreign trading competitors at the expense of American companies.
Conflicting and inconsistent views on trade policy result largely from a lack of understanding of basic economic principles. Free trade is not a zero-sum game where some countries benefit and others inevitably suffer. On the contrary, true free trade by definition benefits both parties. Free trade is the process of free people engaging in market activity without government interference such as tariffs or managed-trade agreements. In a true free market, individuals and companies do business voluntarily, which means they believe they will be better off as a result of a transaction. Tariffs, taxes, and duties upset the balance, because governments add costs to the calculation which make doing business less attractive. Similarly, so-called managed trade agreements like WTO favor certain business interests and trading nations over others, which reduces the mutual benefit inherent in true free trade.

Washington intervention in international trade only benefits certain special interests for a short time. In the long run, the vast majority of American citizens and businesses would benefit from unfettered access to all foreign markets. An example is the relatively unregulated software industry, where American companies absolutely dominate the global marketplace. Americans don't need help competing, but they do need a government which does not hinder their access to foreign markets. By following the current policy of government-managed trade and special interest favoritism, Congress is harming the constituents it was elected to represent. The sooner we adopt policies which promote free exchange with all nations, the better off our nation and its people will be. (Read Full Article)

In the current US recession, with unemployment hitting ten percent and millions of Americans out of work, protectionist "Buy American" measures and stipulations in the economic stimulus money being doled out by the Obama Administration sounds good on the surface. However history shows that protectionist measures implemented by the Hoover administration exacerbated the Great Depression. Like it or not, we live in a global economy. The economy of one nation can have significant impact on the economies of other nations, for good or bad. I agree with Congressman Ron Paul, that Americans come out better in the long run economically when there is genuine free trade between nations without government or other third party interference or governance. Will President Barack Obama make the same mistake as Herbert Hoover did during the recession that became the Great Depression? Will President Obama veto any bills that have "Buy American" provisions? Does President Obama think he owes too much to the "Big Labor Unions" to do the right thing? As I see it, "Buy American" protectionism isn't the right course in the current recession.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"The First Steps To No Choice/Low Quality Socialized Medicine"

mothanskin — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 03:01:00 GMT

Employers would be required to offer health care to employees or pay a penalty — and all Americans would be guaranteed health insurance — under a draft bill circulated Friday by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's health committee.
The bill would provide subsidies to help poor people pay for care, guarantee patients the right to select any doctor they want and require everyone to purchase insurance, with exceptions for those who can't afford to.
Insurers would be supposed to offer a basic level of care and would be required to cover all comers, without turning people away because of pre-existing conditions or other reasons. Insurance companies' profits would be limited, and private companies would have to compete with a new public "affordable access" plan that would for the first time offer government-sponsored health care to Americans not eligible for Medicare, Medicaid or other programs.
The draft bill sets up a system of state-level "exchanges," where people would go to shop for insurance plans and which would also oversee the marketplace. The federal-state Medicaid program for the poor would be greatly expanded.
Insurers would be required to pay for preventive care, and a new Medical Advisory Council would make recommendations on required health care benefits that would take effect unless Congress rejected them all at once — similar to how military base closures are handled.
The draft doesn't address how this would all be paid for. That remains a major sticking point.
Yet many hurdles remain. Republicans are strongly opposed to a new public plan, especially the way Kennedy's bill designs it. Under Kennedy's bill the "affordable access plan" would pay providers 10 percent over Medicare rates, which would make it cheaper for patients, but harder for private insurers to compete with. Private insurers fear such a construct would drive them out of business, and there's even division within Democratic ranks. (Read Full Article)
Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said in an op- ed piece yesterday in the Boston Globe that a key way to expand health-care coverage to the 46 million uninsured Americans is through a new program run by the U.S. government.
“An important foundation of our legislation is the following principle: If you like the coverage you have now, you keep it,” Kennedy wrote. “But if you don’t have health insurance or don’t like the insurance you have, our bill will give you new, more affordable options.”
Kennedy’s plan would require employers to provide health insurance or pay a subsidy to help support the public plan, according to the summary. It would set a federal standard for Medicaid, the federal program for the poor, to cover people who earn up to 150 percent of the poverty level. States currently set their own standards for coverage.
The Kennedy proposal expands the Children’s Health Insurance program to cover people up to age 26, from age 18 under the current plan, according to the summary. It also outlined the creation of a “Medical Advisory Council,” a body like the Federal Reserve that would help set minimum benefits for a public plan.
Some insurance companies, including Hartford, Connecticut- based Aetna Inc., argue that private corporations would be at a disadvantage under a plan that would, in effect, extend Medicare, the U.S. government health plan for the elderly and disabled, to more people. Aetna says it pays an extra $89 billion a year to providers to make up for “underpayments” from patients covered by existing government programs. (Read Full Article)

The first steps to no choice/low quality socialized medicine in the US have begun with Senator Edward Kennedy's bill proposals, which will drive employers to drop health benefits and drive insurance companies out of business. As I see it, only affluent Americans will have any real choice because many doctors won't accept bureaucratic slow paying and low paying government insurance just as they don't today accept going bankrupt Medicare and Medicaid. Who in "they right mind" think the government can run any business without waste, fraud and inefficiency on a massive scale? Who in "they right mind" think the government won't cut services and raise prices once America becomes a single payer government health care provider? In my opinion health care costs can be lowered tremendously through deregulation of the health insurance industry, allowing hospitals, doctors and clinics to offer their own insurance along with the major insurance companies. However the Obama Administration is dead set on ramrodding Ted Kennedy's proposals down America's throat without taking the time to consider other alternatives to making health insurance more affordable. There are other ways to bring health care costs down, while maintaining quality and choice without turning to European style socialized medicine, President Obama.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"Obama Did America Proud In Cairo"

mothanskin — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:46:00 GMT

U.S. President Barack Obama delivers a speech in the Grand Hall of Cairo University June 4, 2009.REUTERS/Larry Downing Thu Jun 4, 6:05 PM ET

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world, tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation but also conflict and religious wars.
More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims and a Cold War in which Muslim majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries but also to human rights.
All this has bred more fear and more mistrust. So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles, principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra, our magnetic compass and tools of navigation, our mastery of pens and printing, our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires, timeless poetry and cherished music, elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second president, John Adams, wrote:
"The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims."
And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars. They have served in our government. They have stood for civil rights. They have started businesses. They have taught at our universities. They've excelled in our sports arenas. They've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building and lit the Olympic torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same holy Quran that one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, kept in his personal library.
The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores. And that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average.
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.
So let there be no doubt... let there be no doubt, Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations: to live in peace and security, to get an education and to work with dignity, to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al-Qaida and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice. We went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the offense of 9/11. But let us be clear. Al-Qaida killed nearly 3,000 people on that day.
The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al-Qaida chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach.
These are not opinions to be debated. These are facts to be dealt with. Make no mistake, we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military — we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict.
We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan, and now Pakistan, determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths but, more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam.
The holy Quran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as — it is as it if has killed all mankind.
And the holy Quran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding.
This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia, to Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed, that's how it is surrendered.
Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern with institutions that serve the needs of its people.
Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities, to play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.
At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.
This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security, neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank.
Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace. And Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.
But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests.
It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
Now, I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nations should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.
And any nation, including Iran, should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty. And it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.
And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which people protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation.
That's why I'm committed to work with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat. Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit, for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.
We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism. In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims and Jews. (Read Full Speech)

In my opinion, President Barack Hussein Obama gave a magnificent speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, Egypt. Undoubtedly there will be many bigoted Americans, Muslims and Jews who will find fault with some or all of what President Obama said but anyone who loves the dignity and diversity of humanity found the President's speech uplifting and inspiring. It seems as if President Obama will be even handed in the Israel and Palestine peace negotiations and the President is willing to give Iran the benefit of the doubt and allow them to pursue their right to have nuclear energy. As an American, I am very proud of my President in his conduct and speech within the Muslim world. Obama did America proud in Cairo! God is indeed Great!

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"Germany's Merkel Calls Out Bernanke And The Fed"

mothanskin — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:33:00 GMT

A medal commemorating Germany's 1923 hyperinflation. The engraving reads: "On 1st November 1923 1 pound of bread cost 3 billion, 1 pound of meat: 36 billion, 1 glass of beer: 4 billion."

The inflation in the Weimar Republic was a period of hyperinflation in Germany (the Weimar Republic) during 1921-1923.
The hyperinflation episode in the Weimar Republic in the 1920s was not the first hyperinflation, nor was it the only one in early 1920s Europe, nor the most extreme inflation in history (the Hungarian pengö and Zimbabwean dollar have both been more inflated). However, as the most prominent case following the emergence of economics as a science, it drew interest in a way that previous instances had not. Many of the dramatic and unusual economic behaviors now associated with hyperinflation were first documented systematically in Germany: order-of-magnitude increases in prices and interest rates, redenomination of the currency, consumer flight from cash to hard assets, and the rapid expansion of industries that produced those assets.
It is sometimes argued that Germany had to inflate its currency to pay the war reparations required under the Treaty of Versailles, but this is misleading.
Although reparations accounted for about one third of the German deficit from 1920 to 1923, the government found reparations a convenient scapegoat. Other scapegoats included bankers and speculators (particularly foreign), both of which groups had, in fact, exacerbated the hyperinflation through the normal course of their profit-seeking.
Although the inflation ended with the introduction of the Rentenmark and the Weimar Republic continued for a decade afterwards, hyperinflation is widely believed to have contributed to the Nazi takeover of Germany. Adolf Hitler himself in his book, Mein Kampf, makes many references to the German debt and the negative consequences that brought about the inevitability of National Socialism. The inflation also raised doubts about the competence of liberal institutions, especially amongst a middle class who had held cash savings and bonds. It also produced resentment of Germany's bankers and speculators, many of them Jewish, whom the government and press blamed for the inflation. (Read Full Article)

Tue Jun 2, 7:21 AM ET German Chancellor Angela Merkel enters her limousine after she made a speech at a conference for social market economy in Berlin, June 2, 2009.REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch (GERMANY POLITICS)

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has voiced skepticism about leading central banks' approach to tackling the economic crisis, suggesting that they may be storing up more trouble for the years ahead.
Merkel's comments come as the European Central Bank has faced criticism from some analysts for not being as aggressive as either the U.S. Federal Reserve or the Bank of England, both in cutting interest rates and in promoting measures such as bond purchases to boost the money supply.
Merkel appeared to defend the ECB's more conservative instincts and raise questions about the Fed and Bank of England actions. "The independence of the European Central Bank must be preserved and the things that the other central banks are doing now must be reversed," Merkel said in a speech Tuesday, the text of which was posted on the government Web site.
"I view with great skepticism the powers that the Fed has, for example, and how, in the European area, the Bank of England has developed its own little lines," she said, adding that the ECB "also bowed somewhat to international pressure" with its decision to buy bonds.
"We must together return to an independent central bank policy and to a policy of good sense," Merkel said. "Otherwise, in 10 years we will again be standing at exactly this point."
She did not elaborate. Some analysts say that the aggressive action by the Fed risks unleashing inflation down the road.
Germany has long been a staunch defender of the ECB's independence and has traditionally taken a conservative approach to monetary policy. (Read Full Article)

Wed Jun 3, 11:22 AM ET U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testifies before the House Budget Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington June 3, 2009.REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke defended Wednesday the US central bank's aggressive intervention in markets, rejecting unusual criticism a day earlier by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
"I respectfully disagree with her views," Bernanke told a congressional panel when asked about Merkel's comments Tuesday.
"The US and global economies, including Germany, have faced an extraordinary combination of a financial crisis ... unlike any seen since the Great Depression, plus a very serious downturn," he said.
"And in that context, I think strong action on both the fiscal and monetary sides is justified to try to avoid an even more severe outcome."
Merkel issued a rare criticism of central banks Tuesday for their massive cash injections to boost the economy and stressed the importance of central bank independence.
"We must return to a policy of having independent central banks," Merkel said in a Berlin speech.
Merkel expressed "great skepticism regarding the power" of the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, urging them to "put an end" to controversial, non-conventional measures aimed at boosting their recession-hit economies.
Bernanke, appearing in a hearing in Washington, said he was "comfortable with the policy actions that the Federal Reserve has taken" and that the Fed "can exit from those policies at the appropriate time without inflationary consequences." ( The Article Source)
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Wednesday urged Congress and the administration to cut record-high budget deficits, warning that they could erode investor confidence and endanger the economy's long-term health.
Bernanke's comments came as concerns grow at home and overseas about the United States' mounting red ink.
"Even as we take steps to address the recession and threats to financial stability, maintaining the confidence of the financial markets requires that we, as a nation, begin planning now for the restoration of fiscal balance," Bernanke told the House Budget Committee.
The White House estimates that the government will rack up an unprecedented $1.8 trillion budget deficit this year. That would be more than four times last year's all-time high.
Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the panel's ranking Republican, raised concerns about the budget deficits and the Fed's own actions to stimulate the economy, including buying government debt.
"This can be a dangerous policy mix," Ryan warned, adding it could lead to "runaway inflation."
With the recovery likely to be subdued, inflation will remain low, Bernanke predicted.
Bernanke said he was "comfortable" with the Fed's actions. (Read Full Article)

I am so glad Fed Chairman Ben Benanke is "comfortable" with the massive deficit spending of the Bush and Obama administrations but millions of other US citizens, China, Germany and other fiscal responsible nations are not "comfortable" with the actions of Ben Bernanke and the Fed because of the great potential for hyperinflation. As a German, Chancellor Angela Merkel knows the history of her own country's hyperinflation after World War I which gave rise to Hitler's Nazi socialism. Bernanke speaks with a forked tongue when he bails out banks and industries to the trillion dollar tune and then talks about deficit reduction. Apparently Ben Bernanke is also comfortable with bullshitting America while the Fed destroys the value of the US dollar and the Obama Administration pushes through it's "must have" expensive health care and auto industry reforms, among other expensive "must have" spending in the midst of recession. I am glad Chancellor Merkel had the figurative "balls" to call out Ben Bernanke and the Fed on it's inflationary fiscal policies. At least Germany has a leader with some sense of economic reality. Don't let up Chancellor Merkel!

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

"Obama Machine Ramrods Health Care Reform"

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:25:00 GMT

"Big Oil's Embrace Of Biofuels"

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:57:00 GMT

"Bush/Obama Unwarranted Surveillance Exposed"

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 04:12:00 GMT

"The Mixed Legacy Of Michael Jackson"

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:15:00 GMT

"The Untold Story Of Wind Power; Unreliability"

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:37:00 GMT

"The Pope's Call For Socialism"

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:28:00 GMT

"The Natioanl Debt And Budget Deficit Are Not The Same"

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:44:00 GMT

"Will Clean Energy Spending Create Recession Ending Jobs?"

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:06:00 GMT

"No More Acceptable Civilian Casualties In Afghanistan"

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:42:00 GMT

"Return To Marcus Welby MD; The Real Health Care Reform?'

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:06:00 GMT

"Affirmative Action; Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right"

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:01:00 GMT

"Congress Giving Due Deliberation To Health Care Reform"

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:45:00 GMT

"Iranian Lion Women Standing Up To Ayatollah"

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:34:00 GMT

"Obama Don't lIke The Invisible Hand?"

Sat, 20 Jun 2009 04:10:00 GMT

"More Power To The Fed?"

Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:31:00 GMT

"Obama Care And Costs Be Damned"

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:42:00 GMT

'Will Israel Ever Do Right By The Palestinians?

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:48:00 GMT

"Another Revolution In Iran?"

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:52:00 GMT

"Obama Fires IG For Doing His Job?"

Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:46:00 GMT

"The Quandary Of Gitmo Detainees"

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:15:00 GMT

Mo'thanskin

"Obama Machine Ramrods Health Care Reform"

President Barack Obama achieved a milestone Wednesday when a Senate committee approved a plan to revamp the U.S. health care system.

The Senate panel's action, which attracted no Republican votes, came as the president's campaign organization rolled out television ads to build support for his top domestic priority.

Obama met with Republicans at the White House in search of an elusive bipartisan compromise on his call to expand coverage to the nearly 50 million uninsured Americans as well as restrain spending increases in health care.

But the 13-10 party-line vote in the Senate health committee signaled a deepening rift in Congress. While Democrats respond to Obama's call for action with renewed determination, Republicans are using harsher words to voice their misgivings.

Obama wants the House and Senate to act on health care this summer so lawmakers can reconcile differences in their respective bills after Labor Day and put final legislation on his desk this fall.

Obama met at the White House with Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

"I urged him not to rush consideration of the bill," Collins told reporters later. "This bill is going to affect virtually every American. If the president tries to rush this through in the next two weeks ... I fear the process will be very divisive."

Another senior Republican, whom Obama courted only a few months ago to become his commerce secretary, also sounded alarm bells.

In the ads, private citizens describe problems they've had with the medical system and say it's time for action. The sponsor is Organizing for America, Obama's campaign organization, which has become part of the national Democratic Party. The group would not reveal the cost.

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., one of the lawmakers targeted, said the ads would not affect his decision. He has concerns that the evolving Democratic plans would give government too big a role. (Read Full Article)

House Democrats plan to fund the broadest U.S. health-care expansion in four decades by increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans, imposing a surtax of 5.4 percent on couples with more than $1 million in income.

The legislation unveiled yesterday would place additional taxes on households with more than $350,000 a year in income and calls for further increases if the measure doesn’t hit a target for cost savings. The provisions are intended to raise $544 billion over 10 years.

The plan drew fire from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s biggest business lobby.

“The intention of this plan is to tax high-income households, but the real victims would be America’s small business owners,” the Washington-based group’s president, Thomas Donohue, said in a statement. “Since when does our great free-market country punish success?” (Read Full Article)

"Big Oil's Embrace Of Biofuels"

The agreement could plug a major gap in the strategy of Exxon, the world’s largest and richest publicly traded oil company, which has been criticized by environmental groups for dismissing concerns about global warming in the past and its reluctance to develop renewable fuels.

Despite the widely publicized “moonshine” remark a few years ago by Exxon’s chairman and chief executive, Rex W. Tillerson, the company has spent several years exploring various fuel alternatives, according to one of its top research officials.

But if it proves a bona fide effort, Exxon’s move into biofuels, long the preserve of venture capital firms and biotech start-ups, could provide a big push to the Obama administration’s policy of encouraging more renewable energy.

According to Exxon, algae could yield more than 2,000 gallons of fuel per acre of production each year, compared with 650 gallons for palm trees and 450 gallons for sugar canes. Corn yields just 250 gallons per acre a year.

Exxon’s partnership with Synthetic Genomics is also a vote of confidence in the work of Dr. Venter, a maverick scientist best known for decoding the human genome in the 1990s. In recent years, he has focused his attention on a search for micro-organisms that could be turned into fuel.

“Algae is the ultimate biological system using sunlight to capture and convert carbon dioxide into fuel,” Dr. Venter said.

BP has insisted it remains firmly on track with plans to grow its Alternative Energy business, despite confirmation it has accepted the resignation of the division's boss and is to close down its London headquarters.

A spokesman for the oil giant told BusinessGreen.com that the move was part of a process of "simplification and overhead reduction", and should not be interpreted as a sign of wavering commitment to the clean energy division.

He added that the recent cuts in investment were primarily a result of the recession and that BP remained "slightly ahead of schedule" in its plan to invest $8bn in clean energy between 2005 and 2015. (Read Full Article)

Royal Dutch Shell provoked a furious backlash from campaigners yesterday when it announced plans to scale back its renewable energy business and focus purely on oil, gas and biofuels.

Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive, said that Shell, the world's second-largest non-state-controlled oil company, was planning to drop all new investment in wind, solar and hydrogen energy.

“I don't expect them to grow much at Shell from here, due to portfolio fit and the returns outlook compared to other opportunities,” he said, speaking at the Anglo-Dutch group's annual strategy briefing.

He said that instead Shell would focus its remaining renewable energy investments on biofuels, where it is conducting research into “second generation” fuels, so far with little commercial success. (Read Full Article)

"Bush/Obama Unwarranted Surveillance Exposed"

The report, compiled by five inspectors general, refers to "unprecedented collection activities" by U.S. intelligence agencies under an executive order signed by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Just what those activities involved remains classified, but the IGs pointedly say that any continued use of the secret programs must be "carefully monitored."

Although the report documents Bush administration policies, its fallout could be a problem for the Obama administration if it inherited any or all of the still-classified operations.

Information gathered by the secret program played a limited role in the FBI's overall counterterrorism efforts, according to the report. Very few CIA analysts even knew about the program and therefore were unable to fully exploit it in their counterrorism work, the report said. (Read Full Article)

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (also called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, H.R. 6304, enacted 2008-07-10) is an Act of Congress that amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The provisions of the Act granting immunity to the complicit telecoms create a roadblock for a number of lawsuits intended to expose and thwart the alleged abuses of power and illegal activities of the federal government since and before the September 11th attacks.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) today announced his support for a sweeping intelligence surveillance law that has been heavily denounced by the liberal activists who have fueled the financial engines of his presidential campaign.

"The Mixed Legacy Of Michael Jackson"

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shut the door Thursday to a resolution honoring Michael Jackson because debate on the symbolic measure could raise "contrary views" about the pop star's life.

Lawmakers are free to use House speeches "to express their sympathy or their praise any time that they wish," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "I don't think it's necessary for us to have a resolution."

A resolution sponsored by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, cites some of the singer's charitable acts and proclaims him an American legend, musical icon and world humanitarian.

Even before Pelosi's comments, some Democrats said privately they did not support the resolution and a divisive debate would hurt House efforts to muster the votes for priorities such as health care and climate change.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who posted a video on YouTube calling Michael Jackson a "pervert" and a "pedophile," has pledged to do all he could to block the resolution.

"A resolution, I think, would open up to contrary views to — that are not necessary at this time to be expressed in association with a resolution whose purpose is quite different," Pelosi said at a Capitol Hill news conference where she discussed various legislative matters.

Unbowed, Jackson Lee said she will seek support from colleagues who thanked her when she introduced the measure June 26, one day after Michael Jackson died. She said honorary resolutions don't often "pass the next day."

From the stage at Jackson's memorial Tuesday at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, Jackson Lee hoisted a framed copy of the resolution. (Read Full Article)

The Los Angeles police chief says detectives investigating the death of Michael Jackson are looking at his prescription drug history and trying to talk with his numerous former doctors.

Police Chief William Bratton told CNN on Thursday that police are waiting for the coroner's report before ruling out any possibilities in their "comprehensive and far-reaching" investigation into the sudden death of the 50-year-old pop star two weeks ago.

The coroner's report will determine the cause of death and hinges on time-consuming toxicology tests, but detectives are already gathering evidence.

Bratton says the Drug Enforcement Agency and the state attorney general's office, which keeps a database of prescription drugs, are assisting investigators. (Read Full Article)

What do Michael Jackson and Albert Einstein have in common...besides pure genius? Both their brains are in a glass jar—at least for the time being.

The Los Angeles County Coroner's Office says it's holding onto a section of the late King of Pop's brain as part of its investigation into how he died.

Because toxicology tests take several weeks and are not yet complete, a coroner spokesman says pathologists need to wait for the organ to harden before they can conduct neuropathology tests to help determine what caused Jackson's apparent cardiac arrest and subsequent death.

Investigators have focused on the possibility that Jackson accidentally overdosed on a potent anesthetic, and a thorough examination of brain tissue might shed some light on what drugs were in his system. (Read Full Article)

A city council member on Thursday called on AEG Live to pay some of the estimated $1.4 million cost for policing Michael Jackson's memorial service at the Staples Center.

Dennis Zine told Fox 11 that the city's taxpayers "are getting ripped off" because the owner-operator of the Staples Center profited by charging media up to $50,000 to use risers outside the venue.

AEG President Tim Leiweke had said Zine was out of line for asking AEG to pay for policing because it helped solicit donors for the Los Angeles Lakers' NBA victory parade last month.

Jackson's concert promoter, AEG Live, said that it paid for the memorial itself along with the Jackson estate, but did not mention the cost of crowd control.

The parade and memorial both resulted in extraordinary costs to Los Angeles at a time when it is in debt for half of a billion dollars and facing employee layoffs.

The cost of city services for the Lakers' parade was about $1 million. Donors covered about $850,000 of that sum. The Lakers and AEG spent another $1 million to produce the parade and rally at Memorial Coliseum. (Read Full Article)

"The Untold Story Of Wind Power; Unreliability"

Plans for the world's largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle have been scrapped, energy baron T. Boone Pickens said Tuesday, and he's looking for a home for 687 giant wind turbines.

Pickens has already ordered the turbines, which can stand 400 feet tall — taller than most 30-story buildings.

"When I start receiving those turbines, I've got to ... like I said, my garage won't hold them," the legendary Texas oilman said. "They've got to go someplace."

In Texas, the problem lies in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system, Pickens said in an interview with The Associated Press in New York. He'd hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said there were technical problems.

"It doesn't mean that wind is dead," said Pickens, who runs the Dallas-based energy investment fund BP Capital. "It just means we got a little bit too quick off the blocks."

Like most industries around the world, the recession has hurt wind turbine manufacturers and wind farm developers. Companies have shelved development plans and laid off workers. (Read Full Article)

T. Boone Pickens has temporarily shelved plans to build the world's biggest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle because of tight credit markets and low natural gas prices, and his company Mesa Power is looking for other projects that could use the $2 billion worth of wind turbines already on order.

The project was a symbol of the oilman's commitment to his high-profile campaign to slash the nation's dependence on foreign oil with a combination of wind power and the use of natural gas in vehicles.

Rosser said Mesa Power was also unable to borrow $2 billion for transmission lines to link the wind farm to the Texas grid. "Now we're going to wait for the state to put the transmission [lines] in, which will invariably be slower than what we were planning," Rosser said.

He said Mesa Power was looking at projects in the Midwest and Canada that might need the turbines.

Pickens made his fortune in the oil business but last year lost a big chunk of it in oil trading because he failed to anticipate a swift drop in prices. He has spent $60 million promoting the Pickens Plan for reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. (Read Full Article)

Boone Pickens is calling for massive subsidization of the wind-power industry.

As with ethanol and recycling and a host of other issues, you must ask yourself again, if these things are so efficient, why do they need to be subsidized? Answer: they're not so efficient.

Energies that require massive subsidization benefit absolutely no one; the only reason they need to be subsidized is that they cannot compete on the open market.

That fact alone tells you everything you need to know about them: they're simply not good enough yet.

When they are, the free market will adopt them naturally.

The reason wind power still won't get us very far is that transmitting this power is such a huge difficulty.

Wind is also unpredictable; it's therefore hard to integrate into an electrical grid, since grids have to maintain a voltage balance, or you'll get brownouts, blackouts, and power surges that destroy equipment by the ton.