For the past two decades, politicians and activists have been playing the role of Chicken Little trying to convince us that the sky is indeed falling. I was a teenager for most of the 1990s and can remember hearing horror stories of ‘Global Warming’ and the ice caps melting and polar bears drowning in the Arctic. Al Gore led the charge with warnings of disaster if we didn’t reduce our “carbon footprint” by finding alternative renewable energy sources. I can recall my fears as I watched the evening news with my dad and saw story after story about Global Warming complete with “scientific studies” and “expert” opinions on the subject. Sadly, I was unaware, at the time, of the media bias and how the talking heads of the networks were complicit in perpetuating this rouse. Let me rephrase that…this was not just a rouse… this was the most large scale attempt to convince Americans of something that had little to no evidence of being anywhere near the truth… well, until now that is, as we listen to Obama supporters try to convince us that the President has had a very successful four years…but I digress.
Let me first stipulate that I believe that “Global Warming” or “Climate Change”, as it more commonly referred to now, is real. However, the notion that it is in anyway caused by man and our use of fossil fuels is beyond ridiculous. The fact is that the Earth goes through cycles and has for millions of years. Today, the two sites in Antarctica, EPICA and Vostok, where core ice temperatures are measured are no higher than they were 400,000 years ago. Currently, the Earth is in what is called a interglacial period or a warming period and has been experiencing this warming trend for 11,000 years. Conventional wisdom says that, from historical data, the usual interglacial period lasts around 12,000 years…however, most experts calculate this current interglacial period to be parallel to a previous period which lasted more than 28,000 years. Not convinced? See for yourself:
Furthermore, I would like to mention the fact that over 70% of the earth is water, which means that less than 30% of the earth’s surface is made up of land with only 3% of the land being inhabited by humans and a fraction of percent of that inhabitance that is industrialized. Even with this fact, the environmental extremist and political propagandists still try to argue that greenhouse gases released by use of natural resources in the industrialized world is causing this natural warming effect. Even with the fact that carbon emissions have been reduced significantly in America over the past thirty years due to, what had been up until now, common sense regulations on the energy industry, they still try to convince you that Climate Change is manmade. Even with the fact that carbon dioxide (Co2) levels are lower today than they were over 300,000 years ago…long before the industrial age, they still say that the coal and oil are to blame for the earth’s rising temperatures. Not convinced? See for yourself:
Scientifically, the general consensus is that fluctuations in the amount of incoming solar radiation are the most likely cause of large-scale changes in Earth's climate. This solar variable was neatly described by the Serbian scientist, Milutin Milankovitch, in 1938. There are three major components of the Earth's orbit around the sun that contribute to changes in our climate. First, the Earth's spin on its axis is wobbly, much like a spinning top that starts to wobble after it slows down. This wobble amounts to a variation of up to 23.5 degrees to either side of the axis. The amount of tilt in the Earth's rotation affects the amount of sunlight striking the different parts of the globe. The greater the tilt, the stronger the difference in seasons... i.e: more tilt equals sharper differences between summer and winter temperatures. The range of motion in the tilt (from left-of-center to right-of-center and back again) takes place over a period of 41,000 years. As a result of a wobble in the Earth's spin, the position of the Earth on its elliptical path changes, relative to the time of year. This phenomenon is called the precession of equinoxes. The cycle of equinox precession takes 23,000 years to complete.
In short, I think its self evident that man has very little impact, if any, on the climate changes of the Earth. I know I threw a lot of scientific mumbo jumbo at you…most of which I myself have the slimmest of understanding…but the more you look at the facts and the history of our planet, the more this manmade “Global Warming” myth becomes laughable and should be dismissed outright. This is nothing more than a scheme to turn people against fossil fuels to further the agenda of progressives and left wing nuts who long for a government controlled energy industry.
Question: Does an all of the above energy policy really mean all of the above….or does it only pertain to all of the above green energy?
As far as I know, coal, oil and natural gas are still major components of energy consumption here in America and throughout the world. So why does President Obama seem so hell bent on not only ignoring the production of oil, natural gas and coal but also appears to be doing all he can to stifle it. The Senate, earlier this year, tried to attach an amendment to a highway bill that would allow the Keystone XL pipeline to proceed without the approval of the President. I can understand how this maneuver to circumvent the president may be seen in a bad light among liberals. But when GALLUP polls show that nearly 60% of Americans want the pipeline while only 30% are against it… and President Obama continues to block its approval, the Senate felt, at the time, they were left with no other option to make sure the overwhelming majority of American citizens were fairly represented. The Amendment fell only 4 votes short of the necessary 60 votes that it needed to pass. Among those 56 votes were 11 democrats, and there is a strong belief on the right side of the aisle that if it had not been for President Obama’s admitted lobbying against the amendment, then it would have certainly passed. Our friend and neighbor to the north, Canada, is offering us a deal that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 8% and create well over 10,000 new jobs… and yet the White House seems determined to fight against the pipeline while asking Saudi Arabia to produce more oil.
Really????
This administration would rather fatten the pockets of the oil sheiks in the middle east than strengthen our relations with Canada and help the Canadian economy as well as our own. Wow! I am baffled at the sheer incompetence of this President and the people with which he has surrounded himself. I’ve even heard some liberals say that Canada is trying to screw America over and that somehow we’re getting a raw deal in regards to the pipeline.
Again I say….REALLY???
Therefore….by this argument…I am left with no other conclusion than liberals have more faith in fair dealings with Saudi Arabia than they do in Canada. I just shake my head in utter disbelief. The left would also like you to believe that President Obama is doing all he can to increase oil drilling in America. They will tell you that oil production is at the highest levels in years…blah blah blah. While this is technically true… it has nothing to do with the policies of President Obama. The majority of new drilling in this country is taking place on private/state land (which does not require the President's approval)…and the only drilling that has begun on federal land since Obama took office has been by permits granted during the Bush administration. Don’t let them fool you by taking credit for numbers that have nothing to do with the policies they have forced onto the American people.
And if you like numbers Mr. President.... How about this number…3%….you know what that number is? That is the unemployment rate in the state of North Dakota where a lot of private lands being used for drilling oil are located. The average unemployment rate for the six gulf coast states is at 9%….the lowest rate at 7.3% in Louisiana and the highest rate at 9.3% in Mississippi. That’s a pretty telling statistic and a pretty good reason to expand oil drilling throughout this country (on shore and off). Don't you think that maybe the citizens of these gulf states might like to partake in the numerous jobs that would be created by opening up drilling in the gulf?
The simple fact is that oil, natural gas and coal (like it or not) are the cheapest form of energy and they are a job creating machine. And America is sitting right on top of an abundant supply. Enough to last us for 100s of years... which leads me to my point. Why is it that America can’t develop its own natural resources to create jobs, provide energy independence and low energy costs... as well as ease the pain at the pump in the not too distant future….while still continuing to develop renewable energy? I don't understand how one cancels the other out. To me…that is what an “All of the Above” policy should be. I don’t understand why the left seems to think that these two policies are unable to exist simultaneously. Believe it or not…conservatives are not against green renewable energy. We are against the government wasting taxpayer money on energy industries that are not even close to being ready for the market.
We have a President who’s policy seems to be that somehow the government has become a bank with the sole purpose of loaning money to green energy companies. When did the American taxpayer sign on to take on this burden? I know I sure didn’t. Half a billion dollars thrown at Solyndra (now bankrupt)….another billion thrown at Abound Solar (now bankrupt)... another half billion thrown at First Solar(now bankrupt)... another 200 million thrown at Fisker Automotive…(now laying off employees and bankruptcy seems eminent). These are only a few examples of how this administration has proven to be grossly incompetent venture capitalists and only a small fraction of the 100 BILLION DOLLARS that have been flushed down the drain on similar companies.
Vice President Biden said in 2009 that Fisker Automotive would create more than 3000 new jobs by the year 2011. That didn’t quite come true as they only employed 100 people at the peak of their three year run, and are now beginning to lay people off. When Fisker accepted the government/taxpayer loan, they said they would open a plant in the United States and would employ two thousand people. They began to keep that promise by buying a shuttered GM plant in Delaware, but as of yet there has not been a single Fisker automobile built within its walls…and the company now says they are looking to produce their vehicles overseas where it is cheaper. While the argument of the cost of doing business in America has its merits, there are much bigger reasons for Fisker’s money troubles. One reason is the fact that Consumer Reports bought one of their cars for testing which broke down in the parking lot before the testing could even begin. The Fisker Karma was the name of the car…and while it looked really cool…it failed to stay started, it failed to go into gear, and there were numerous electrical problems. It eventually had to be towed out of Consumer Reports parking lot at its testing facility. And this fabulous Fisker Karma can be yours for the low low price of $140,000.
SERIOUSLY???!!! $140,000!!!!!
This is the President’s plan to help middle class families deal with raising gas prices??? How many middle class families do you know that can afford a 140,000 dollar car? Not many I’d suspect. I suppose then the President would direct the middle income family to the fabulous Chevy Volt. The Volt’s technology is almost exactly the same as the Fisker Karma…at a third of the price. The Volt carries a sticker price of around $41,000 and doesn’t have nearly the operational problems as did the Karma. However, there have been a few cases of Volts catching on fire…but other than that…they run and drive pretty good. The problem with the Volt is that it is still slightly more than the average family is able to invest in. Especially when you can buy a much cheaper compact car that gets comparable gas mileage to the Volt. For example: Both the Ford Focus and Toyota Corolla get great gas mileage at 40 mpg and come with a much more agreeable sticker price of $16,000 to $17,000. Now, I agree that 40 mpg isn’t as impressive at the Volts 60 mpg and in some tests said to be as high a 70 mpg, but when a consumer is looking at almost 25,000 dollars in price difference (more when you include taxes and finance rates) its easy to see why the Volts are still sitting on the dealership’s showroom and production of the vehicle has been haulted. Not to mention that the Toyota Prius and Ford Fusion-Hybrid are also competitors of the Volt with sticker prices of $24,000 and $27,000 respectively…and both getting 50 mpg.
To bottom line is this….if there were a market for these green energy cars and green energy companies, there would be no need for a 100 BILLION DOLLAR investment of taxpayer money. If this technology were ready for the market, then PRIVATE INVESTORS would be lining up to invest in them. THAT’S HOW THE FREE MARKET WORKS!!!!! I know that liberals would want you to believe that big oil companies are somehow preventing the emergence of alternative renewable energy, but this is absolute nonsense. The cold hard truth is that the technology is just not far enough advanced to be competitive with fossil fuels. I’m sorry that technology isn’t as advanced as people thought we would be 50 years ago. I know that we were suppose to have flying cars by now and inhabited space stations and all that jazz….but we are just not there yet. Its true that technology is progressing at a miraculous rate, but I honestly believe that we are decades away from the technology we need in order to replace fossil fuels as our main source of energy in this country.
News flash... gas powered cars are NOT going away anytime soon!
Oh…and by the way, people don’t always realize this, but electric cars would also run mostly on FOSSIL FUELS since coal and natural gas provide nearly 70% of America’s electricity. So if everyone owned an electric car…coal and natural gas production would have to increase monumentally in order to keep up with the electricity demands. Power doesn’t just magically appear in a wall socket…and at current coal production under President Obama as well as regulations prohibiting the building of new coal burning plants… there is no where near enough electricity to support an electric car in every driveway…there isn’t enough electricity to support an electric car in half of America’s driveways….hell, there isn’t enough electricity to support an electric car in a third of America’s driveways without massive brown and black outs sweeping across the country. These policies put forth by President Obama have put the cart so far out in front of the horse that the horse can’t even see the damn cart.
What ever happened to the government simply allocating grants to private research facilities for the purposes of developing new technologies? When did the government get into the business of starting companies from scratch? I look around and I notice things starting to happen as though I’m watching chess pieces strategically move into position. The government now has its hands deep into wall street, the housing market, the banking industry and the car industry. Its as though a picture is starting to come into focus… Its becoming clear the left doesn’t hate the oil companies because they pollute the earth or because they’re greedy fat cats. They know they will never be able to get their hands into the oil industry. Its too big and too profitable to ever need a government bail out. So it would appear that perhaps they don’t want the private market to someday create another private energy industry that will become just as large as the oil industry (which will happen if the free market is allowed to work). It appears that the government wants to have their hands deep into the new energy industry from the beginning. Which brings me to my conclusion. This President’s administration doesn’t want to improve the energy industry, they want to own the energy industry. Which to me goes way beyond socialism...and takes us down a road that would change the face of America forever.
I'm not one who's prone to overstating my posistions, so keep that in mind when I say that a seige cloaked in compassion has befallen the most vulnerable citizens of this nation... Our children. And what does our government think is the solution to our woeful education system? The same solution they have tried for years....MORE MONEY! However, we've seen that more money is simply NOT the solution. The United States has gone from spending under $400 per student in 1962 to close to $13,000 per student today ($2000/student in 1962 to $13,000/student today when adjusted for inflation)...and yet, when judged against other countries around the world (all of whom spend less on education), America falls well short....ranking 9th in science and 10th in math. The fact is that money is not the problem...the problem is the breakdown of the family unit, bad teachers, and greedy unions...to name a few. However, the point of this blog is not to talk about the solutions to our education system...that will come later. This blog's purpose is to shed light on what a disservice we are doing to our children. A good education is the greatest gift to give a child...our founding fathers knew this...as did many other great Americans thoughout history. And I would argue that none knew it more than a man I have long admired, Frederick Douglass.
The Eduation of Frederick Douglass:
How a boy born into slavery unlocked his shackles with the key of education and rose to greatness on the promise of America
The son of a slave woman, Frederick Douglass was born in February of 1818 on Maryland's eastern shore. He spent his early years with his grandparents and with an aunt, seeing his mother only four or five times before her death when he was seven. During this time he was exposed to the degradations of slavery, witnessing firsthand brutal whippings and spending much time cold and hungry. When he was eight he was sent to Baltimore to live with a ship carpenter named Hugh Auld. There he learned to read and first heard the words abolition and abolitionists. "Going to live at Baltimore," Douglass would later say, "laid the foundation, and opened the gateway, to all my subsequent prosperity." When Douglass was about six years old, his grandmother walked with him the twelve miles from his childhood cabin to the Wye House plantation where he would begin work as a slave.
Because Frederick had a natural charm that many people found engaging, he was chosen to be the companion of Daniel Lloyd, the youngest son of the plantation's owner. Frederick's chief friend and protector was Lucretia Auld, Aaron Anthony's daughter, who was recently married to a ship's captain named Thomas Auld. One day in 1826 Lucretia told Frederick that he was being sent to live with her brother-in-law, Hugh Auld, who managed a ship building firm in Baltimore, Maryland. She told him that if he scrubbed himself clean, she would give him a pair of pants to wear to Baltimore. Frederick was elated at this chance to escape the life of a field hand. He cleaned himself up and received his first pair of pants. Within three days he was on his way to Baltimore.
It was here, under the instruction of Mrs. Auld that young Frederick first learned the alphabet. However it did not last long, for when Mr. Auld discovered these lessons he strictly forbade it in words that left a profound impression on young Frederick "He must be able to detect no inconsistencies in slavery; he must be made to feel that slavery is right". Even at this young age, he knew that while knowledge and learning of the world around him could bring him great unhappiness, it could also give him great power over his enslavers who preferred their chattel to remain ignorant and unthinking. Frederick earnestly set forth a plan to continue to learn to read and write on the sly, aided by the white children he met on the streets and among the shipyards and docks.
Frederick Douglass first encountered The Columbian Orator, a book which left an everlasting impression on him, around the age of twelve, just after he learned to read. As Douglass became educated in the rudimentary skills of literacy, he also became educated about the injustice of slavery. Of all the pieces in The Columbian Orator, Douglass focused on the master-slave dialogue and the speech on behalf of Catholic Emancipation. These pieces helped Douglass to articulate why slavery was wrong, both philosophically and politically, as he emerged as the greatest African-American leader and orator of the nineteenth century. The Columbian Orator, then, becomes a symbol not only of human rights, but also of the power of eloquence and articulation. To some extent, Douglass saw his own life’s work as an attempt to replicate The Columbian Orator.
Frederick also began reading local newspapers and began to learn about abolitionists. Not quite 13 years old but enlightened with new ideas that both tormented and inspired him. Frederick began to detest slavery. His dreams of emancipation were encouraged by the example of other blacks in Baltimore, most of whom were free. But new laws passed by southern state legislators made it increasingly difficult for owners to free their slaves.
By Douglass’ teenage years, the seed of education had blossomed into a tree of knowledge which the young man would use to combat the ignorance of the horrors of slavery for the better part of the 19th century. At a young age, he understood the power of awareness and the endowment that came with his extensive comprehension of the issues of the time. An understanding that is unfortunately lost on most of today’s younger generation, and worse, not available to far too many of our nation’s children. With a failing public school system and the deteriorating family in America, most of our would-be future leaders and champions of democracy are left adrift without a strong foundation of American principles. I wonder what Mr. Douglass would say about President Obama’s failure to lead on the issue of school choice in America… I wonder what Mr. Douglass would think about the millions of inner city children (many of which are minorities) that are stuck in sub par public institutions while better schools are only miles away… I wonder what Mr. Douglass would have done if he had been given this choice for his own children… Actually, in retrospect, I don’t have to wonder. I know what Mr. Douglass would have done…and I think you do too.
Frederick Douglass Acomplishments
Leader of the abolitionist movement and accomplished orator
Appointed to the commission for possible annexation of the Dominican Republic by President Grant in 1871.*
Appointed as US Marshall by President Hayes in 1877*
Made Recorder of Deeds for the District of Columbia by President Garfield in 1881*
Appoint US Minister and Consul of General Republic to Haiti in 1889*
Recieved a delegate vote at the 1890 Republican National Convention for nomination as candiate for the Rupublican Party for President of the United States.*
*All firsts for an African American
“Without education he lives within the narrow, dark and grimy walls of ignorance. … Education, on the other hand, means emancipation. It means light and liberty. It means the uplifting of the soul of man into the glorious light of truth, the light by which men can only be made free. To deny education to any people is one of the greatest crimes against human nature. It is easy to deny them the means of freedom and the rightful pursuit of happiness and to defeat the very end of their being.” -Frederick Douglass 1894
Stemming from my last blog about this faux outrage over religious intolerance in America expressed by the President and his administration, I have found conclusive evidence of the absolutely stunning hypocrisy attached to every word emitted from their shameless mouths. Perhaps you've heard of a little film series about a couple of stoners named Harold and Kumar... or perhaps not. The premise of these movies is two friends that smoke a lot of pot and get into outrageous situations as they try to accomplish what should be very easy tasks. There have been three installments of the 'Harold and Kumar' movies with each one trying to be even more extreme than the last. There are numerous "jokes" made at the expense of religion in these films...but the second sequel, 'A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas', has sunk to all new lows. The movie depicts Jesus as a night club owner with nude women on each arm...it has a nun shower scene complete with full frontal nudity...and one of the stars of the movie, Kumar, punching a bishop in the face (to name a few).
However, this is only part of the story. The story gets more interesting when you learn that the actor playing the role of Kumar is a man named Kal Penn. You may not be aware of this, but Kal Penn works for the White House. THAT'S RIGHT! Works for the WHITE HOUSE!!! On April 8, 2009, it was announced that Mr. Penn would join the Obama administration as an Associate Director in the White House Office of Public Engagement. Penn resigned his post as Barack Obama's Associate Director of public engagement on June 1, 2010, for a brief return to his acting career. After filming the third Harold and Kumar movie...and doing a guest spot on 'How I Met Your Mother, he returned to his political duties. Not only returned to his duties, but he also gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention in North Carolina earlier this month. You can't make this stuff up. Again, I ask, where is the outrage?
Over the past few days, since our embassies in the Middle East have come under siege by Islamist extremist, I have heard many outcries of outrage in regards to American religious intolerance. But is this genuine outrage? Beginning with the US embassy in Cairo's statement: "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions... "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others." Continuing with President Obama's statement on Wednesday morning: "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others..." and Secretary Clinton's comments on how America has a long history of supporting "religious tolerance". But I would ask Secretary Clinton: What about recent history of religious tolerance? That is to say, religious tolerance in regards to religions that aren't Muslim?
It seems everywhere I look in America, religion is fair game for offensive attacks and denigration as long as that faith is Christianity or Catholicism or Judaism. I ask, where is the outrage when Bill Maher viciously attacks Christians? Or Seth Macfarlane depicts Jesus Christ in offensive ways on his cartoons? Both Maher and Macfarlane are contributors to the Democratic Party, and yet there seems to be zero outrage over their intentionally offensive attacks (all be it in the name of humor). And how about the smear campaign launched by MS-NBC, or as I refer to it "OBAMA-NBC" or "BS-MBC" or "BM-NBC" (take your pick), attacking the Mormon religion. Especially, Mr. "Thrill up my Leg" Chris Matthews who referred to Catholics and Mormons as "Cultists".
Where is the outrage...where is the outcry to stop the religious intolerance? What's it going to take??? Christians storming HBO studios??? or Mormons scaling the walls of MS-NBC burning pictures of Chris Matthews??? Of course these things will never happen because Christianity is a religion of peace...and there is where the difference lies.
There is no outrage over religious intolerance (or if there is, its the most blatant example of hypocracy I have ever witnessed). What we are witnessing is a primal fear of the Islamist extremist who turn to violence at a moments notice. The radical wing of the Muslim religion has caused such anxiety amongst our leaders in America that they immediately feel the need to defend the Muslim faith while ignoring the other faiths that face attacks on a daily basis. At this point, our leaders have developed such an overwhelming fear of radical Islam that they dare not even say the words "extremist" or "radical Islam" or "War on Terror". However, I caution that speaking no evil does not make evil go away. I assure you that the War on Terror continues whether the President wants to admit it or not. The war did not end with the Killing of Osama Bin Laden. You must remember that the Cold War was fought for decades, and I fear that the War on Terror has decades left ahead of it as well. Now is not a time to be scared and try to appease our enemy in hopes that they will somehow come to terms with the West. News flash: THEY HATE US! THEY WILL ALWAYS HATE US and everything we stand for. And by they, I mean Islamist extremists. Diplomacy has zero...let me repeat that...ZERO...chance of sucess with them. They will not be satisfied until every American, Christrian, Jew, and every other non believer is dead in the name of Allah. Thats just a fact...and its nothing to be scared of...its something to be intolerant of and fight against in the name of freedom.
It seems today that many people say they understand a sacrifice needs to be made in order to get federal spending under control…as long as the sacrifice is made by someone else. If you so much as mention entitlement reform (including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, unemployment insurance), then you become heartless…or out of touch…or racist…etc. The fact is that these entitlements MUST be reformed as they are unsustainable in their current form, and the recipients of these benefits should realize that the entitlements are a privilege and NOT a right. I’m not saying that entitlements should go away (actually, nobody is saying that), but cuts and restructuring MUST occur to ensure that these programs will be around for generations to come. Its time for politicians to have the political will to do what is needed as well as time for the American people to come to terms with the sacrifices that must be made.
Say what you will about the Budget Plan introduced by Congressman and Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan… at least Mr. Ryan has the courage to take entitlement reform head on even if it is very unpopular politically. The fact is that the retirement age MUST be raised for the simple fact that people are living much longer than they were when Social Security was first implemented. The average life expectancy in the 1930s was 58 for men and 62 for women. Also, in the 1930s, only 54% of people who reached the age of 21 actually made it to the retirement age of 65. Today over 85% of people make it from 21 to the retirement age of 65. It seems to me that Social Security started off as a very clever scheme because only half of the people who paid into it actually received benefits from it. I could go on to explain how the government began using the Social Security money as a type of slush fund…but I’ll save that for a future rant.
Also there’s the fact that not only are more people living to retirement age, they are also drawing benefits for a longer time frame. On average, in the 1930s, a person drew Social Security for 13 years, now beneficiaries draw for over 20 years on average. If President Roosevelt had realized that in 1935 life expectancy was much higher than it was in 1865, then maybe he would have had the foresight to make the retirement age progressive. Today the average life expectancy for men and women is around 75 which is a 15 year increase from the average life expectancy of 60 in the 1930s. All President Roosevelt would’ve had to do was write into the Social Security Act that the retirement age would increase by 1 year every 15 years. Which would make the current retirement age 70 with it scheduled to increase to 71 in the year 2025. When the Social Security act was passed the retirement age was 65 and life expectancy was 60...a five year deficit…and if the current retirement age was 70 with a current life expectancy of 75, then there would be a five year positive gap…But somehow if you even suggest raising the retirement age to only 67 or 68, then you hate old people or some bull crap.
Then there’s Medicare. I’m sure you’ve heard about how Paul Ryan wants to throw granny over a cliff and all that jazz…and that he wants to ration health services to seniors and blah blah blah. Its all crap. Mr. Ryan’s “voucher program” (as his critics call it) is NOT about rationing…the Ryan plan creates a Medicare payment initially averaging $11,000 per recipient with lower income earners receiving more support while benefits for wealthier seniors are reduced. This Medicare payment allows seniors to purchase their own PRIVATE health insurance if they choose. The idea is that its much cheaper to pay for seniors’ Medicare certified insurance plans than it is to pay for all of their doctor visits, prescriptions, procedures and operations with taxpayer money. Makes sense to me.
The opponents of the Ryan Plan say that under this plan all new Medicare recipients would receive $2,000 less in benefits than they are currently projected to receive. I say….ummmm…that’s kind of the idea…isn’t it? We want to lower the expense of Medicare on the taxpayers…and as I said before, the plan states that we will spend less per recipient because its cheaper to grant a Medicare payment for private insurance than it is for the government to pick up the entire tab which averages between $13,000 and $14,000 per recipient. Not to mention the fact that the President’s own healthcare law calls for cutting Medicare by $500 billion dollars and puts 15 unelected bureaucrats in charge of Medicare (to ration care)….where as the Ryan Plan puts seniors back in charge of managing their coverage.
Finally, there’s Medicaid. All that the Ryan Plan calls for is to put STATES back in charge of running their healthcare plans. Each state is different and should be allowed to create a system that works best for its citizens. I really don’t see a problem with that. Critics say that some state governments run just as badly as the federal government…and I say…THAT’S THE WORST ARGUMENT I’VE EVER HEARD. Because some of the state governments are just as bad as the federal government then we shouldn’t allow the states with solid governments to create their own Medicaid plans??? The states are suppose to compete with each other…and if one of these less than stellar state governments sees that a plan is working well in a neighboring state…then maybe they’ll try that plan for themselves as they begin to notice that their citizens are moving away to the better ran state. The hard fact is that the federal government allows nearly 10% of the Medicaid budget to be spent on improper payments (fraud) totaling around 40 BILLION dollars a year. That’s over double the average of all other government program’s improper payments of around 4%.
The bottom line here is that States want to keep their citizens…a State without citizens ceases to exist…so competition makes states want to do better for their people. That’s what has made our republic so great and why there are many more things that should be given back to the states to decide…but again, that’s a rant for another time. I just feel as though it’s a no brainer to give Medicaid back to the states…especially, when it has become obvious that Washington is all but completely dysfunctional.
In closing, I want to make one thing very clear…The Ryan Plan doesn’t cut anything from these programs. Let me repeat that…. THE RYAN PLAN DOESN’T CUT ANYTHING from these programs!!! The Plan simply slows the growth of the programs…and we all know that according to liberal math, if a program is suppose to get a 5% increase and it only receives a 4% increase then that’s a cut. Give me a break. That’s like saying a child started out by getting a 5 dollar per week allowance with every six months the allowance being raised by 1 dollar. After two years, the allowance would have risen by 4 dollars to a total of 9 dollars per week. That would have meant the child had their allowance increased by 2 dollars each of the first two years. Now say that during the third year, the parents decided (for what ever reason) to raise the child’s allowance 1 dollar to bring the total allowance to an even 10 bucks. According to a liberal, the child didn’t receive a dollar raise…they received a dollar cut. I hope that you can see the difference between a cut and slowed growth. They are completely different things.
I was dismayed this morning to wake up and read the news about the teachers striking in Chicago. I decided to dig deeper into the situation and find out what they were angry about and what was so damn important that they felt the need to walk out of the classrooms at the expensive of the children's education. Must be something pretty important...monumentally important....right? WRONG!!! Here are the issues at hand.
FINANCES: To cover the $665 million dollar deficit in the budget which began in July, the district was forced to drain its financial reserves and raise property taxes to the highest levels allowed under the law. The Unions did not seem to have a problem with the impact of these steps to close the deficit. The problem arose because of a plan to reform the teacher's pension plans which are underfunded by 80 BILLION DOLLARS!!! But asking the teachers to contribute 3% more into their pensions is apparently too much to ask. Even though they are among the highest paid teachers in the country making about $70,000 per year...which brings us to the next issue.
SALARIES: Because of the budget crisis, the district decided to reduce the 4% salary increase due this year for teachers to 2%...but last week raised it back to 3% during negotiations and also agreed to 16% in salary increases over the next 4 years. Apparently not good enough, even though the teachers in Illinois are the second highest paid teachers in the country. The teachers feel they are over worked and under paid. Higher wages are what they feel compensates them for the over crowding of the classrooms...which brings us to the next issue.
CLASS SIZE: On this issue, I actually agree with the Unions. Class sizes are too big... But how do we fix this??? By paying teachers more??? NO!! You fix this by hiring more teachers...which raising current teacher's salaries makes impossible to do since the district is already broke. The Unions are mad that the district is closing down schools which will increase class sizes even more...and again, I agree with the Unions that closing schools down will be a disaster for the school system in Chicago...But again...How do we fix this??? By paying teachers more??? NO!!! The schools are closing because the district is broke.
SCHOOL HOURS: To me, this is the most self indulgent issue of this entire sad ordeal. When Mayor Emanuel took office in 2011, Chicago was the only one of 30 major city school districts where elementary school students received less than 1,000 hours of instruction a year, and he vowed to implement a longer school day. He and the union agreed before schools opened this month to extend the school day by about 90 minutes. The deal calls for hiring about 500 more teachers from union members laid off previously at a cost of $50 million, rather than making existing teachers work longer hours. The hiring of those teachers has become an issue in the talks as the union wants them hired based on seniority and Emanuel wants school principals to make the decisions. Because Unions think a principal should NOT be able to decide who is the best available teacher for their school and instead the schools should be forced to choose a teacher based solely on seniority, they rejected the prior proposal which was going to bring in more teachers and help with class sizes which is one of the chief complaints. Go figure.
STANDARDIZED TESTS: The last main component of the Union's decision to strike is that they feel that teacher's should not be assessed based on their student's test scores. I'm back and forth on the standardized test issue. I'm not a fan of George Bush's "No Child Left Behind" policies as I feel that it makes the teachers teach like robots going down a check list of government mandated curriculum. I don't think that is the best way to teach children. However, it seems that no matter what the mechanism is to evaluate teachers...the Unions are opposed to it. I ask the question: How should they be judged if not on test scores? Some teachers will argue that city schools can't compete with more rural schools because of crime and living conditions of the children in their districts (sadly, they have a point) However, if every teacher is held accountable by the same standards based on test scores of similar districts, then I believe its quite easy to weed out the good teachers from the bad.
The fact is that Unions have over promised to their members on the backs of taxpayers. These pensions can simply not be paid over the long term. Its a scam!!! With each wave of retirees it takes more and more employees to cover the costs and time has run out. There are too many retirees and too few employees to pay for it. You can argue over who is to blame...but the fact remains that pension reform is necessary in order to help prevent budget shortfalls. I personally don't believe that Unions have any place in the public sector...but that's my opinion which I'm sure many disagree with. However, its a proven fact that pensions are bankrupting cities all over this country...that is not up for debate. I wonder why Unions are so against cutting benefits for their members...why are they so against pay freezes or cuts even when its in the best intrest of the city? Because a pay cut for one of their members is a pay cut for them...That's why. Unions have become corrupt over the years...and power hungry. The fact is that Unions are losing their power little by little every year (more so in the private sector than public). A power that would appear they are unwilling to relinquish without a fight.
There's not much on which I agree with FDR...but on this one...he was absolutely right! SCHOOL CHOICE!!! SCHOOL CHOICE!!! SCHOOL CHOICE!!! SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!SCHOOL CHOICE!!!
I was doing some research today and came across a very peculiar report on the PBS website. It struck me as quite odd that this reporter, Ray Suarez, would somehow find a way to paint the situation of a town in North Dakota with an unemployment rate at 1% and a booming economy due to development of oil on private lands, in somewhat of a negative light. Pointing out that so many people are descending upon this small town there aren’t enough homes or lodging to satisfy the demand and traffic problems and the fact that there aren‘t enough people to fill all the job vacancies…
Excerpt from PBS Report:Tonight, we begin a series on the changing landscape of energy in the U.S. and the consequences of ever-increasing development. In western North Dakota, near the Montana border, there's so much oil around, it almost feels risky to say it: boom -- a 1 percent unemployment rate, heavy traffic in what was once a sleepy town of 12,000, nowhere to live, restaurants that close early because they can't find enough people to work at $15 an hour and others offering signing bonuses to dishwashers and fast food workers.
This boom has caused unforeseen growing pains and a gusher of cash surging through a town not totally ready for it. Williston's population doubled in size in two years. Suddenly, the parking lots are full with cars from all over and job-seekers coming from every direction. Joe Gunderson moved from Montana and says he is making the best money of his life. JOE GUNDERSON:It's been good. It's really good, I mean, anything you want. Money is not really an issue. I mean, if you want it, you just buy it and make it work.
RAY SUAREZ: Another man, Tyler, is working as a cook until something opens up in the oil fields and living in his car. Tyler: (pointing to different sections of his car) That is the food section down there. That is the kitchen. Out back, that is toiletries. Essentially, what I do is, I move everything from back to the front whenever I want to sleep and then the front to the back whenever I want to drive around or can fit a passenger in. I have my cooler. I have a lot of good camping gear, but there's nowhere to camp around here, unless I want to pay a ridiculous amount of money. Yes, welcome to my home. RAY SUAREZ:So, for now, home is a parking place. Why not point out the obvious fact that developing our country’s natural resources will have the same effect on our country as it did in this small town in North Dakota and create millions of jobs? Today, there is still over 80% of offshore acreage that is off limits for drilling…ANWR remains untapped… and the Keystone Pipeline’s approval still sits on the back burner. Maybe the reporter should put out there that, if our current leadership in this country would recognize the pile of new wealth and economic growth lying just below our feet, then small towns like Williston, ND wouldn’t be so overwhelmed with people desperate to find work. There would be plenty of work spread throughout the country. And… I also would like to point out that if restaurants are so busy and the job market is so competitive that they have to pay wages of $15 per hour and offer signing bonuses to dishwashers…THAT’S A GOOD THING!!! THAT’S THE FREE MARKET AT WORK!!!
I have been quite puzzled the last few days since hearing former President Bill Clinton proclaim that the recession that President Obama inherited could not have been corrected in four years by any President… not even him. I felt this statement needed to be looked at more closely in order to check the validity of his assertion. I was very young during the Reagan years having been born only two months before he was elected in 1980. However, I remember, as a child, hearing about how bad the economy had been…and words like “recession”, “inflation”, and “unemployment”. Now of course, at the time, these terms meant very little to me as my greatest concerns were whether or not my dad would let me watch cartoons instead of a boring rerun of Star Trek or if we were going to order pizza for dinner instead of having dad’s famous hamburger surprise.
Having closely researched the failing economy at the end of the Carter administration into the beginning of the Reagan administration, I am left to wonder if the recession of the early 80s at the beginning of Reagan’s presidency was not only comparable but, in many cases, much worse than the recession of 2008 into 2009 as Obama’s term as president began. First of all, Reagan didn’t inherit one recession…there had been three separate recessions that began in 1969 with each recession being worse than the one before. So you could say that Reagan inherited an economy that had been sputtering along for a decade and was in the midst of the worst recession yet… where as President Obama had inherited a recession which had been preceded by 54 months of job growth and economic growth of over 3% per year.
When President Reagan swore into office in January of 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.5% and the labor force as a percentage of population was 63.5% (which up until now, was the all time low in civil participation in the workforce). At the end of his first term, in January of 1985, the unemployment rate had gone down to 7.3% after having peaked at nearly 11% in 1982. You might be thinking that a .2 point drop overall from 7.5% to 7.3% isn’t really that impressive, but when you see that he lowered the unemployment rate and increased the labor force to 64.5% in the same time frame it becomes much more impressive…and by the end of his second term, in January of 1989, the unemployment rate was 5.4% with a workforce participation rate of 66.3% only about 1 point off from the all time high in workforce participation rate since the statistic began being calculated. Now, lets compare Obama’s record.
When President Obama swore into office in January of 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.8% (only slightly higher than the number Reagan inherited) and the workforce participation rate was 65.7%. In the closing month’s of President Obama’s first term, unemployment stands at 8.1% after having peaked at just over 10% (nearly a full point lower than the trajectory of the recession in the 80s which topped out at 11%) with a workforce participation rate of 63.5% (returning to the all time low at the beginning of the Reagan administration). It needs to be said that if the workforce were as large as it was when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be a whopping 11% right now.
Furthermore, when Ronald Reagan took office America was suffering double-digit inflation, with the CPI (Consumer Price Index) registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped by anyone (sounds a lot like what Mr. Clinton said), at least it couldn’t be fixed without a calamitous economic collapse (heard that one before too). However, by the end of 1983 (Reagan’s third full year as President) , inflation rates had fallen to 3.22% which is only slightly higher that the inflation rate at the end of 2011 (Obama’s third full year as President) which stood at 3.15%. However, Obama was not handed the same hand when it comes to inflation. In fact in the two years leading up to Obama’s first term, the inflation rates were 2.85% in 2007 and 3.85% in 2008. Again, Ronald Reagan was handed a much worse hand than was Barrack Obama.
Not to mention that all of the above was accompanied by double digit interest rates in the early 80s, with the rate peaking at 14.14% in 1981. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%, but by the end of his presidency Reagan had managed to stop the upward trend and lowered the poverty level back to 14%. A fall in real median family income, that began in 1978, snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982, but by the end of the 1980s, median household incomes had increased by 15%. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks. Now, before you go investigating my numbers, and respond by saying the actual decline of the stock market during this time period was closer to 23%…please realize that I have done my homework and factoring in the catastrophic inflation rate of the period the loss in value is equivalent to 70%. Folks back then would have been better off putting their money in mattresses than investing in the stock market.
To be fair, Obama inherited some similar numbers in some aspects. Interests rates, however, have not been above 5% since he took office. Therefore, once again, Reagan stepped into yet another worse situation than did Barrack Obama. President Obama did inherit a rising poverty level, however, at the end of his first term the level continues to rise to a rate of over 15% with a record number of Americans on food stamps. President Obama did inherit a crashing stock market which lost more than half its value between 2007 and 2009 and, to be fair, much of those losses have been recovered. However, the market has yet to return to the high it had reached in 2007. By this point in the Reagan presidency, the market had not only regained all of its losses, but had climbed by 20% over the previous high.
By all accounts, I would say that the recession of the early 80s was either as bad or worse than the recession of 2008. It feels silly comparing the two…kind of like the age old “my dad can beat up your dad” argument, but when someone argues that he inherited the worst economic crisis sense the Great Depression, and nobody could have fixed it…that argument needs to be challenged. Even if I stipulate (which I don’t), that they were equally bad on all counts or even the recession of 2008 was worse in some aspects… There is absolutely no argument that the Obama “recovery” is in any way comparable to the tremendous turnaround of the American economy during the Reagan administration.
I’ve already shown that economic indicators such as the unemployment rate, workforce participation, poverty rate, stock market, and median household income were all much better under President Reagan. However, the truest indicator of a strong American economy is the growth rate or GDP (gross domestic product) growth. In Reagan’s third year, 1983, the economy grew at a staggering rate of 7.25% and by the end of the Reagan recovery the growth rate had maintained an average of above 4% adding more than 20 million jobs. In Obama’s third year, 2011, the economy grew at a rate of 1.65% which was a slower growth than the previous year, 2010. That is a very troubling sign, since the recession officially ended in May of 2009. The Obama campaign team likes to boast about 4 million new jobs created and 30 months of straight private sector job growth. However, these numbers are misleading and underwhelming.
The 4 million jobs added don’t include the jobs that have been lost during his presidency…there has actually been a net loss of 300,000 jobs since he assumed the office in 2009. Also, the 30 months of straight job growth is not a feat never before accomplished by a president. Actually, the record for number of straight months with job growth is 92 months which began in 1982 under Ronald Reagan and continued until 1990. Hell, the 30 months that the Obama campaign is so boastful about doesn’t even come close to the 54 straight months of private sector job growth that occurred during George W. Bush’s presidency. In fact, the 30 months of straight job growth becomes even more lack luster when you realize that for the past six months our economy has added a mere 93,000 jobs per month on average. That’s about 50,000 jobs short of what we need to just break even with population growth, 100,000 jobs short of where we need to be in order to see any real progress in economic growth, and about 200,000 jobs short of the bar set by President Reagan.
So…Mr. Clinton, I feel that not only was it possible to have fixed the recession of 2008 in one term…I have conclusive proof that it HAS been done before. Hell… President Clinton, himself, inherited a pretty bad economy only a couple years removed from a recession and an unemployment rate over 7% and he turned things around as well. I’m so sick of liberals whining and crying about George Bush and the awful recession and poor pitiful President Obama who couldn’t have possibly risen to the bar that he had set for himself in 2008 with all his lofty campaign promises. Time to grow up, grow a pair and grow this economy…or get out of the way and let someone who knows what they’re doing take over.
I’ve spent the last day pouring over the new jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics yesterday morning. If you watch the mainstream media or read the New York Times, you probably heard or read this headline: “Unemployment rate DROPS to 8.1%”. However, this doesn’t even come close to telling the entire story. First of all, the number of new jobs added last month was an abysmal 96,000...and since the prior two months have both been revised to show that actually 20,000 fewer jobs were added in each of those two months than originally reported, the real number is probably somewhere around 75,000. This is about 75,000 jobs short of the 150,000 jobs we need each month just to break even with population growth. You may be asking “if so few jobs were added, then how did the unemployment number fall from 8.3% to 8.1%?” and the answer is simple but shocking. 368,000 people gave up looking for work and dropped out of the workforce…that means for every new job added, 4 people gave up hope in the job market.
You see, the unemployment rate is calculated based on the number of unemployed people including people who are without jobs, available to work and have actively sought work in the prior four weeks. The “actively looking for work” definition is fairly broad, including people who contacted an employer, employment agency, job center or friends; sent out resumes or filled out applications; or answered or placed ads, among other things. That number declined by 250,000 in August, but it was overwhelmed by the 368,000 drop in the size of the labor force. That suggests that many of those 250,000 stopped looking for work not because they found a job, but because they dropped out of the labor force. The unemployment rate is calculated by dividing the number of unemployed by the total number of people in the labor force.
When President Obama took office, in January 2009, the labor force participation rate was just under 66% and today it has fallen to 63.5% (the lowest levels since the labor force participation began being recorded). If the same number of people filing unemployment claims and “actively seeking work” were the same today as it was in January 2009, given the current job market, the unemployment rate would be around 11%… and if you include the 8 million Americans who are under employed (meaning working part time while actively seeking full time employment or whose jobs were cut back from full to part time) the rate would be around 14.5%. This includes 5 million long term unemployed (27 weeks or more) which makes up nearly 40% of the unemployed in America. Levels not seen since the Great Depression.
Wake up people, the economy is terrible!!! And the worst part is that there appears to be zero signs of things getting noticeably better anytime soon if we continue down the same path we are on now. Get informed…do your research…Read Read Read!!! Don’t just take some talking heads word for it…the information is out there. Go to more than one source…read both sides then dig deep into the numbers and irrefutable facts to come up with your own conclusion. Its time for Americans to quit being lead around by the nose… politicians have relied on our ignorance for far too long. Lets hold them accountable this November
I find it laughable that the Obama campaign continues to use the slogan “Osama is dead and GM is alive” as a reason to reelect President Obama. Granted, the President did order the operation (even though, its been revealed that the order gave the President plausible deniability if the operation had gone wrong), but he certainly did not accomplish this on his own. There were many patriotic Americans who contributed to the fatal capture of the world’s most wanted man. People like Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Robert Gates, the brave soldiers in Seal Team Six, nameless CIA operatives, FBI agents, foreign intelligence, and of course George W. Bush who implemented many of the policies by which intelligence was gathered on Osama bin Laden (policies that then candidate Obama campaigned against in 2008).
Furthermore, while GM may in fact still be alive…many believe that another bankruptcy may be just around the corner for the auto company. Right now, the federal government owns 500,000,000 shares of GM, or about 26% of the company. It would need to get about $53.00/share for these to break even on the bailout, but the stock closed at only $22.39/share today and is listed as a bearish stock on the Wall Street Journal‘s Market Watch (not good). This has left the government holding $11 billion worth of stock, and sitting on an unrealized loss of around $15 billion. The government’s GM stock is worth about 33% less than it was on November 17, 2010, when the company went public at $33.00/share. However, during the intervening time, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen by almost 20%, so GM shares have lost around 45% of their value relative to the Dow. All this while analysts are saying that GM’s fall lineup falls well short of their competition as Nissan, Honda and VW continue to out innovate the one time auto giant. In the 1960s, GM averaged a 48.3% share of the U.S. car and truck market. For the first 7 months of 2012, their market share was 18.0%, down from 20.0% for the same period in 2011. With a loss of market share comes a loss of relative cost-competitiveness. There is only so much market share that GM can lose before it would no longer have the resources to attempt to recover. I’m not saying that GM is dead…and I’m certainly not hoping that GM is dead. I’m just saying that, at best, GM is on life support.
Don’t you find it odd that the slogan doesn’t say “…GM and CHRYSLER are alive” as they shamelessly pat themselves on the back? If memory serves me correctly, Chrysler was also included in the “miraculous auto bailout that save the American auto industry from complete disaster” (to quote the Obama team). They probably leave Chrysler out because Chrysler is now owned by the Italian car company, Fiat…and the once great American car company founded by Walt Chrysler, in 1925, exists in name only. I suppose they gloss over that fact seeing as how they continue to try and paint Mitt Romney as the one who sends jobs over seas. Even though, billions of dollars connected to Obama’s stimulus plan went to overseas companies.
Finally, I will close with this point… I am not a fan of the auto bailouts, let me make that crystal clear. I believe that the auto companies should have gone through structured bankruptcies just like every other business must go through when the market dictates. I do not believe in “too big to fail”. I believe in the free market and I believe in all companies suffering market discipline…otherwise, the market becomes corrupt. The funny thing is that GM and Chrysler both went through bankruptcy…the auto bailouts only succeeded in delaying the inevitable, wasting more than 20 billion dollars in the process, and giving government and unions way too much control over a private company. Another fun fact is that Barrack Obama is taking credit for something that he didn’t do. The auto bailouts stem from the TARP Act signed by George W. Bush in October of 2008...a full month before Obama was even elected president. I vehemently disagreed with President Bush’s decision to support the TARP Act. I felt it gave government way too much power and was far too broad in its language. That being said, the fact remains that TARP and by extension the auto bailouts should be credited (if one felt credit was due for such a terrible policy) to George Bush and not Barrack Obama. President Obama seems to love shifting blame and credit for just about everything to George Bush…however, somehow the blame for the auto bailouts is not one of them.
