Surprise! Dept. of Health and Human Resources Reports that Obamacare Will Increase Costs

Care for a bit of light reading for a Friday evening?  Then check out the report issued yesterday by the Chief Actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human Resources.  The report addresses the version of Obamacare that has been presented by Sen. Harry Reid as a complete amendment (i.e., a replacement for) H.R. 3590 (the so-called "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009").  In a development that should not come as a surprise to anyone who has given the matter any thought, the Chief Actuary tells us that the Reid version of Obamacare will increase the cost of health care over the period from 2010 to 2019 to the tune of $234 Billion (see page 4).  Egads.

Senators Reid and Baucus, among others, have been telling us that their version of Obamacare will save money.  The Chief Actuary's report puts the lie to these statements.  And the report also brings to light some other matters that Sen. Reid doesn't want us to know, including:

• Certain components of the plan would produce expenditures so far in excess of receipts that the programs would not be sustainable.
• Additional demand for health services under the expanded Medicare component of the plan could not be met in the short term.
• The proposed reductions in Medicare reimbursement rates would also not be sustainable.

The Chief Actuary's report comes on top of the latest CNN/Gallup polling data which shows that an astounding 61% of Americans are now opposed to Obamacare, and only 22% of poll respondents believe that their families will personally receive any benefit if Obamacare becomes law.

Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi need to abandon this mess now.

Opposition to Obamacare = Support for Slavery?

Yesterday on the floor of the United States Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that Republican opposition to Obamacare equates with opposition to the abolition of slavery during the 19th century.  I kid you not.  An excerpt from Reid's speech, as reported in The Boston Globe: 

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Republicans have come up with is this slow down, stop everything, let's start over," said Reid. "You think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, 'Slow down, it's too early. Let's wait. Things aren't bad enough.' When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted, 'Slow down, there will be a better day to do that. The day isn't quite right," Reid said on the Senate floor.

"When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone, regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today," he continued. "History is repeating itself before our eyes. There are now those who don't think it is the right time to reform health care. If not now, when, madam president? But the reality for many that feel that way, it will never, never be a good time to reform health care."

Sen. Reid failed to mention in his remarks that he has a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and that the Republican minority could not stop the Democratic majority from passing Obamacare if they presented a united front.  But they do not.  The reason Sen. Reid is attacking Republicans is because he cannot attack the members of his own party who refuse to go along with the creation of this massive government takeover of health care. 

Sen. Reid's comments are also interesting because, as so often has been the case, his own Democratic Party was the force behind the opposition to the historical initiatives to which he referred.  The Republican Party was formed in the 19th century primarily as an anti-slavery party in opposition to the pro-slavery Democratic Party.  The Republican Party was the first of the major parties to include a plank in its national platform in favor of universal women's suffrage, which it did all the way back in 1872.  And of course, our own Democratic Sen. Robert C. Byrd led the filibuster in the Senate that sought to stop passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In fact, Republicans, as a percentage of total membership in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, supported passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in far greater numbers than Democrats.  In the House, Republicans suppported passage by 80% to 20%, compared to only 63% to 37% among Democrats.  In the Senate, Republicans supported passage by 82% to 18%, compared to 69% to 31% by the Democrats.

The next time Sen. Reid resorts to history for support of his agenda, he might want to come up with some better examples.

A Mountain of Debt, and Other Thoughts for a Monday

When the The New York Times begins to care enough to write about it, the Obama debt situation must really be getting out of control.    Of course, conservative commentators, including me, have been sounding the alarm bells for a long time (IVM discussed the President's money troubles from its founding back in September).  The Times actually sounds like it is concerned today when it notes that an increase in interest rates above the current unheard-of levels will cause Federal debt service payments to skyrocket:

Even a small increase in interest rates has a big impact. An increase of one percentage point in the Treasury’s average cost of borrowing would cost American taxpayers an extra $80 billion this year — about equal to the combined budgets of the Department of Energy and the Department of Education.

But that could seem like a relatively modest pinch. Alan Levenson, chief economist at T. Rowe Price, estimated that the Treasury’s tab for debt service this year would have been $221 billion higher if it had faced the same interest rates as it did last year.

The national debt now tops $12 Trillion.  Increased debt service payments will continue to eat away at available Federal dollars unless the size of the United States' economy grows dramatically.

IVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVM

Yet another recent event highlights an issue of enormous concern to me:  when will the Obama Administration stand up to the Iranians?  I have written a number of times about the President's unilateral decision to withdraw SDI from Poland and the Czech Republic, a decision that has direct implications to the Iranian situation.  And the President has utterly failed to address Iran's nuclear ambitions, a fact that creates security concerns for Israel, Eastern Europe, Iraq and India.  But why would a "progressive" American President ever want to abandon the moral high ground with respect to human rights and fostering democratic governmental institutions?  Yet the President has done exactly that, in a statement issued, of all times, on the 30th anniversary of the Iranian takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran:

I have made it clear that the United States of America wants to move beyond this past, and seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.  We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs.

Beyond the basic fact that this statement was issued on a date commemorated by Iranian's mad mullahs as a great victory by Iran over "The Great Satan", a couple of things jump out at me.  First, the President says in the statement that he seeks a relationship with "the Islamic Republic of Iran."  The "Islamic Republic" is the same government that is now run by the madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who bullied his way to re-election by intimidation and murder.  Why could not the President simply have said that he seeks a relationship with the people--the ordinary citizens--of Iran?  And second, while the President was reaching out to a government run by institutional terrorists, the streets of Tehran were filled with thousands of protesters who risked their very lives to challenge the government of the "Islamic Republic."  Yet the President offered not one single word of encouragement to those brave souls.  Instead, he made it clear that Ahmadinejad should feel free to continue to beat, torture, imprison and kill his domestic challengers because the United States will "not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs."  How can the United States assert any sort of moral superiority when our leader refuses to utter a word of support for those who only want to enjoy the same rights of free speech, free assembly and free association that we enjoy here?

IVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVM

Ah, the liberal dream that is socialized medicine appears to be dying on the vine of many branches that is the Democratic Party.  To please "progressives" in the Party, any plan must provide coverage for abortion and must include a government-run option.  To the so-called "Blue Dogs" of the Party, the public option is a non-starter, and the final version must show some fiscal restraint.  And while all of the Democrats want to raise our taxes--Democrats LOVE to raise taxes--the Democrats in the House cannot agree with the Democrats in the Senate over which taxes to raise.  So while Harry Reid was able to muster enough votes to move the bill to floor debate in the Senate, he is a looooooong way from herding the cats of his party into the same pen.

My biggest issue:  the pathological lying by Democrats in both houses of Congress over the actual cost of their health care "reform" proposals.  They continue to trumpet that health care reform will actually reduce the deficit over the next ten years.  And how could a Trillion Dollars in new spending possibly reduce the deficit?  Because the Democrats play a parlor trick with the accounting by counting ten years of revenue against only six years of expenses, thus hiding the true cost of their "reform."

And while the Democrats are wasting all of this time and effort on a "reform" proposal that will either (1) fail; or (2) doom the American people to a massive debt burden for as far as the eyes can see, unemployment is reaching higher and higher and higher.  It truly is hard to believe that a gifted politician like Barack Obama can be so tone-deaf when it comes to the actual concerns of the American people.  As his poll numbers continue to slip, he and the Democratic Party-controlled Congress are doing nothing--NOTHING--about the economy.

Ryan. Williams. Is. Awesome.

I attended the Virginia Tech beatdown of the North Carolina State Wolfpack on Saturday, and I got to witness a lot of spectacular plays: Tyrod Taylor tossing a completion while falling backwards to the ground with three defenders hanging off him; Cody Grimm forcing three fumbles by NC State on their first four plays; and Jarrett Boykin making a beautiful diving catch in the end zone for a 38-yard TD. But nothing could match Ryan Williams' third quarter run where he literally dragged an NC State defender ten yards into the end zone. Williams is the sort of special player who just doesn't come along very often. Almost every time he touches the ball, he makes big things happen. And to think: he is only a Freshman. Alas, he probably will not be around for three more years; the big money of the NFL will call him away. But man, it surely is wonderful to be here to see him while the Hokies have him on the roster.

Election Day +1

Today the airwaves and the Web are filled with opinions about "what it all means."  In general, the opinion you get is based upon where you go to seek it out.  Democrats and lefties?  The elections were "local issues" and did not have anything to do with the Obama agenda or his performance in office to date.  The GOP'ers and conservatives?  The results signal that the Obama agenda is under seige and everything from Cap'n Trade to Obamacare will be laid waste.  I suppose my opinion is as worthy as any of those, so a few thoughts from out of the hills:

• Virginia:  Other than Fairfax County and environs and certain parts of metro Richmond and the Tidewater area, Virginia is now what it has always been:  deeply conservative.  Without Obama at the top of the ticket to excite all of the crazy liberals (or "progressives", as they like to call themselves) and get them out to the polls, the ordinary Virginians who are concerned about high taxes and big government came out in force to vote for their own.  The GOP won from the top to the bottom of the ticket.  The Republican candidates won all three of the statewide offices of Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General, and picked up five seats in the House of Delegates, giving them a 60% to 40% majority.  It was a GOP beatdown of the Democrats.
• New Jersey:  I don't know anything about local New Jersey politics, but I do know that they change governors like they change clothes.  In the past ten years, and including the new governor, Chris Christie, who will take office in January, six different people have held the title of governor in New Jersey.  An additional three people have served as "acting governor."  Five of the nine have been Republicans, and four have been Democrats (I am counting Codey twice; a Democrat, he served as both governor and acting governor).  Jon Corzine, the Democrat who was defeated yesterday by Christie, was formerly the head of Goldman Sachs, which may have made him rich but which doesn't look so great to the average blue collar Democrat.  During his short tenure in office, he utterly failed to do anything about New Jersey's outrageous taxes and bloated government.  He tried to claim the Obama magic by bringing the President on board for campaign appearances, but it didn't work.  At least part of the defeat has to be attributed to Corzine's failures, and part has to be attributed to the national economy, where the public's patience with the President is stretching thin.  Neither the people of New Jersey, nor the American public as a whole, have much patience with a weak economy.
• New York 23:  The lone bright spot for the Democrats, who managed to elect Bill Owens in a district that is as red as red can be.  I do not think that Owen's victory represents any sort of Democratic surge in upstate New York.  The Republican dropped out of the race, and the remaining candidate, Doug Hoffman, who ran under the third party Conservative label, was polling in single digits just three weeks prior to election day before the Republican dropped out.  Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate who had been selected by county executive committee chairmen rather than as the winner of a primary, is more liberal than two-thirds of the current Democrats in the House of Representatives (the New York Times, the Huffington Post and other liberal outlets insisted on calling her a "moderate Republican"; apparently, they think that being pro-abortion, pro-Obamacare and pro-stimulus spending constitutes moderation).  The real reason for the overwhelming joy amongst the liberal set is that Hoffman was endorsed by Sarah Palin, who ranks second only to Dick Cheney as favorite boogeyman of the liberals.  Apparently, they believe that Hoffman's loss represents a rebuke of Palin, which could not be less true.  Palin stepped up to the plate and said what needed to be said:  that Scozzafava does not represent Republican values and interests and should not be supported.  Good for her.  If Hoffman had had enough time and money to mount a real campaign, Owens would not have had a chance.

This election comes as the nation deals with an unemployment rate approaching 10%, tight credit and a Federal budget deficit topping $1 Trillion.  Yet with all of the problems with our economy, the Democrats in Congress have wasted the past 3 months debating which form of a government takeover of the health care industry they should enact.  The American people know that now is not the time (if such a time would ever exist) to increase the size of the Federal government by $1.3 Trillion per year for a total approaching 25% of GDP.  Obamacare has been in trouble for a while now, and with 2010 being an election year, the Democrat's dream of having the government make all of our health care choices for us may well disappear until 2011, at the earliest.  Sometimes, doing nothing at all is a very good thing.

I have enjoyed a couple of belly laughs today at the claims by the "progressives" that yesterday's elections actually showcase a need for Democrats to be, hold on now, more liberal!  The examples of this school of thought may be found all over the Web today, but I particularly enjoyed this one, which claims that Deeds would have won in Virginia if only (if only!) he had wholeheartedly supported Cap'n Trade, Obamacare, the Employee Lack of Free Choice Act and unlimited benefits for illegal immigrants.  Heh, heh.  I hope the Democrats take the advice to heart, because if they do, it will ensure a Republican majority for years to come.

On Debts and Spending

No, the title of this post does not refer to my personal financial situation.  Instead, I have a reality check on our national debt and the effect of current runaway spending on our collective financial security.

"Yawn," you say?  Well then, just try to wrap your mind around the following numbers:

• The current unfunded liability for Social Security and Medicare amounts to $107 Trillion.
• The Social Security and Medicare unfunded liability is growing at the rate of $5 Trillion every year!
• Of the Social Security and Medicare unfunded liability, the greatest portion is due to Medicare, which alone accounts for $89 Trillion of the total.  The Medicare prescription drug benefit (enacted by the Bush Administration, which was no stranger to overspending) accounts for $17 Trillion of the Medicare liability.
• By the year 2054 (when my daughter will be approaching retirement age), the payroll tax rate for Social Security and Medicare Parts A, B and D will need to be a staggering 37% in order to cover then-current obligations to retirees.  And remember that the payroll tax does not include Federal, state and local income taxes, with total combined rates that can be as much as 40% in some states.
• According to the Congressional Budget Office, if spending on Medicare and Medicaid continues to increase at its current rate, by the year 2050, at current income tax rates, the entire Federal budget will be consumed just to pay for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Source:  "Social Security and Medicare Projections:  2009", National Center for Policy Analysis, June 11, 2009.

Now, if those numbers do not wake you up, try this one for size:  Obamacare, depending on the final form it takes, will increase the size of the Federal budget by $1 Trillion to $2 Trillion each year.  And the "savings" that will supposedly pay the cost is a myth.  The only way that the Baucus bill that is under consideration in the Senate would achieve revenue neutrality will be if all employers place all of their employees into the government-subsidized plan and then, get this, give all of the savings back to their employees in the form of higher wages!!  Oh yeah, that's gonna happen.

The next time someone says that Obamacare is just like Medicare except that everyone will be covered, ask them whether they have a clear conscience about turning their grandchildren into indentured servants who work for nothing except to pay the bills run up by their grandparents.

And lest you think that the Obama Administration and the Democratic controlled Congress only want to spend your money on Obamacare, you should consider that they have approved increases in domestic discretionary spending of 12.1% for 2010 alone.   The linked article reminds us that inflation is less than 1%, yet the Democrats are increasing domestic spending by 12.1%.  And the increase does not even include the expenditure of the so-called "stimulus" money.  When the stimulus money is included, federal agencies will receive, on average, an increase in their budgets of 57% this year.  And through the magic of baseline budgeting, the increases become a permanent part of the agencies' budgets.  So if a conservative Congressman wants to decrease the size of a particular agency's budget in 2012 by, say, a modest 5%, he or she will be decried by the media and liberal interest groups for taking away from programs that benefit the masses, even though the actual budget, taking into account the 5% decrease, would still be up more than 50% in a two year period.

So remember, even as millions of Americans have lost jobs and real household incomes have shrunk this year, the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress are having no trouble at all spending money we do not have on programs we do not need.

Obama vs. Fox News

I find the current back-and-forth between the White House and Fox News to be fascinating, and not a little disturbing.  Fascinating because Fox obviously hits the President in his weak spots, and he doesn't like it, oh no not one little bit.  ACORNs, anyone?  Disturbing because the Administration's isolation of Fox seems a lot like the type of behavior to be expected from a tyrant, not a democratically elected head of state.  Remember President Nixon's enemies list?  No small number of the names on Nixon's list were journalists and news organizations that reported facts and stated opinions that did not show Nixon in the best light.  Sounds familiar, doesn't it?  Sure, Fox News has Glenn Beck, who is an undeniable nut case.  But MSNBC has Keith Olbermann, who is no less of a nut case, albeit for the opposite end of the political spectrum.  For every Shawn Hannity, there is a Rachel Maddow.  The White House needs to get down from its high horse and stop treating Fox News like a pariah.

Interesting Stuff from Here and There

A few stories I have come across today that I find interesting, in no particular order . . .

From The Washington Post:  Senate Democrats suffer heartburn after attempting to hide $250 Billion in increased health care costs:

John Cornyn (R-Tex.) . . . [stated], "This, of course, violates one of the president's first principles, when he said he won't sign any health-care bill that adds one dime to the deficit," he reminded reporters. "This adds a lot of dimes to the deficit."

From the Associated Press:  The House version of Obamacare will cause health cares costs to increase.

Measures in the legislation to reduce cost may take 15 years to 20 years to deliver a savings dividend . . . [and] tens of millions of newly insured people could put a strain on the health care system.

Again from The Washington Post:  an editorial warning about the runaway Obama budget deficits, which have now reached the staggering sum of $1.4 Trillion just for 2009:

Today, foreigners hold nearly half the $7.5 trillion U.S. public debt. As a result, the politics of deficit reduction are not only extremely difficult, they are extremely difficult and international. Inflation could trigger a global run on the dollar and a nasty interest rate spike.

From The New York Times:  an article about AP reporter Michael Graczyk, who has covered more than 300 Texas executions [I am personally opposed to capital punishment, which is a topic for another day]:

Seeing inmates in the death chamber, strapped to a gurney and moments away from lethal injections, he has heard them greet him by name, confess to their crimes for the first time, sing, pray and, once, spit out a concealed handcuff key. He has stood shoulder to shoulder with other witnesses who stared, wept, fainted, turned their backs or, in one case, exchanged high-fives.

From Newsweek:  an opinion piece by Jacob Weisberg concerning the Obama Administration's attacks on Fox News in which Weisberg calls Fox News "un-American":

What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its century-old tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups. Media independence is a 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken root in many other countries that do have a free press. The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has applied at Fox is un-American, so much so that he has little choice but go on denying what he's doing as he does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes fair play.

This is rich.  The American press is about as independent of political inclination as, well, as I am.  The real reason Weisberg, who usually writes for Slate, is upset with Fox News is that Fox is cleaning everyone else's clock in the ratings.  If no one were watching Fox, neither the left-leaning media nor the Obama Administration would care what was being said.  And it is equally rich that a liberal would call Fox News "un-American" after all of the cries from the left that "dissent is patriotic" when George W. Bush was still in office.  By the way, I do not watch either Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly.  About the only show I watch with any regularity on Fox News is Special Report, which is on from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m.

Shifting Opinions About Climate Change

The site for the climate change documentary "Not Evil Just Wrong" linked today to results of a new Pew Research Center poll about "global warming."  From April 2008 to October 2009, the percentage of people polled who believe that solid evidence of "global warming" exists has dropped 14%.  The poll also finds that only 36% of respondents who DO believe in "global warming" think that human activity is to blame.  Even among Democrats, the percentage who believe that "global warming" is a serious problem is only 49%.  As for cap and trade legislation, the poll found, disturbingly, that 55% of those polled knew nothing about the legislation and another 30% knew only a little.

Source:  Pew Research Center for People & the Press, October 22, 2009.

It is distressing that Congress likely will pass some form of legislation this year limiting greenhouse gas emissions and imposing a cap and trade system when so few people know anything about it.  If the legislation becomes law, the American people will start paying attention when the price they pay for everything increases due to the increased cost of energy.

How NOT to Conduct Diplomacy

Before embarking on the substance of today's post, a bit of history about my IVM soapbox.  A little over a month ago, I became enraged by the Obama Administration's irrational decision to abandon the Bush-era treaties with Poland and the Czech Republic for locating components of the American Strategic Defense Initiative in those countries.  The Obama Administration supposedly took the action in an attempt to get on the good side of the Russians so that the Russians would help the United States exert pressure on Iran over its nuclear program.  SDI is a particularly sensitive issue for the Russians because:  (a) they have nothing comparable; (b) they know that it gives the United States a significant strategic advantage; and (c) Reagan used it like a club against Gorbachev, creating the spark that ended the Cold War.  I was, and remain, particularly hot about Obama's appeasement because he obtained nothing--and I mean NOTHING--in return from the Russians.  In the bizarro world of Obamapolitik, by conceding to the Russians, Obama contended that the Russians would join us at the UN Security Council in imposing new sanctions on Iran.  And afterwards, apparently, the members of the Security Council would all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya."

I expressed my displeasure in a post on Facebook, interrupting the news feed about who had earned what level in "Farmville" and the excitement of learning which 70's song defines so-and-so, to interject a dose of grown-up discussion.  In the past, my political posts on Facebook had been largely ignored, and I expected nothing more when the discussion concerned defense issues in Poland and the Czech Republic.  But to my surprise, I aroused the ire of a 20-something man on my friend list who had spent the better part of a year living in the Czech Republic as part of his college studies.  He was particularly agitated about the portion of my post in which I had said, in effect, that we had abandoned our allies in Eastern Europe (a position by which I firmly stand to this day).  According to this man, I knew not of which I spoke because 60% of the citizens of the CR opposed the placement of SDI on Czech soil.  Furthermore, he said that the Czech administration that had negotiated the treaty with the US is hugely unpopular with the Czech people.  In a crucial mistake, I dared to engage this young man, making the point to him that my opinion on the issue is based primarily on protection of American interests and not on what the man-on-the-street in Prague thinks about the issue.  I also provided several well-written articles making the same point that I was making.  He, however, continued to ignore my underlying point, dismissed the articles I had provided because they presented a conservative viewpoint, and last, but certainly not least, stated that Reagan had little to do with the collapse of Soviet Russia.

I have to tell you, dismissing Reagan as inconsequential to the fall of the Soviets is a sure way to get my back up.  I should have ended the conversation, but I did not, providing articles from Polish newspapers in which great concern was expressed about Obama's decision.  He responded by providing a BBC article that interviewed three (count 'em, three) Czechs, of which two expressed their happiness with the decision and one expressed his concern.  And then came the real kicker:  the young man's father sent me an open message on my Facebook wall (not a private e-mail) saying that his son is vastly more knowledgeable about the topic than I and that, in effect, I should shut up and surrender.  And remember, the young man never once engaged me about the basic point I was making:  that Obama surrendered SDI while getting nothing in return.

I debated how to respond, but ultimately, I decided not to respond.  Instead, I removed the entire thread from my Facebook wall, and I "de-friended" both father and son.  The father's message had hurt me, because he is someone I have known for many years and whom I respect.  I still have no idea why he would choose to come to the defense of his adult son while adding nothing to the debate other than "he lived in the Czech Republic so he obviously knows more about the issue than you."

Subsequently, I decided to re-launch IVM (see my very first post for details), where I can post my political opinions in a place where people may easily ignore them.  Odd, I know, but I really do not want to irritate all of those Facebookers who are sending hugs and hearts to each other.  I have no doubt that my IVM opinions ARE being ignored (including this one), which is just fine with me.

Why the history?  Because our nation's Secretary of State, Hilary Rodham Clinton, spent some time this week meeting with our friends the Russians.  It seems that she went to see them in order to solicit their support for sanctions against Iran.  And how did our friends the Russians respond?

Emerging from four hours of talks with Clinton, [Russian Foreign Minister Sergey] Lavrov told reporters that "threats, sanctions and threats of pressure" against Iran would be "counterproductive."

Wow, now there is a surprise for you.  Who could possibly have seen this coming?  Oh yeah, ME.  And guess what else The Washington Post article linked above had to say:

Failure to win a Russian commitment to a set of specific sanctions in advance could leave the administration vulnerable to Republican criticism that it gave the Kremlin what it wanted by overhauling missile defense plans in Europe but that it got nothing in return.

Hmmmm, where have I heard this before?  Oh, I remember now:  I SAID IT.

Sorry for the rant, but being proven correct just feels so good.

Continuing the Theme

As world leaders prepare to gather in Copenhagen in December to sign yet another accord on CO2 emissions, The New York Times reports that world leaders are actually beginning to think about what it will cost.  According to the article, the cost to reach the CO2 goals to be set in Copenhagen may reach $1 Trillion per year by 2020.  Think about that number for a moment:  $1,000,000,000,000 per year.  And who is going to pay for it?  If you guessed "we will", then you would be correct.  The dollars reaped from huge tax increases and massive increases in energy costs that will result from the so-called "cap and trade" legislation that is pending in Congress will be shipped overseas to pay for the cost to produce "green" energy in the developing world.  And what of the other developed nations?  Won't they be paying too?  Not according to The New York Times:

Xie Zhenhua, the lead Chinese climate negotiator, speaking at a news conference in New York last month, said the United Nations should not expect China to pay.  “Global warming is a result of CO2 from developed countries during their industrialization,” Mr. Xie said. “China is one of the countries that has borne the brunt of that.”

Well, if China won't help with the cost, how about Europe?

Germany and France suggested at a recent Group of 20 meeting in London that they would contribute to the fund by reducing other types of aid.

In other words, if India and Africa expect to receive any aid from Europe to implement "green" energy, then they should also expect that other types of aid, such as infrastructure grants and food shipments, will be cut.

So here we are, debating over how we are going to come up with the trillions and trillions and trillions of Dollars it will take to reduce CO2 emissions, when we don't even know if CO2 causes "global warming"!! 

Somewhere, Al Gore is laughing as he watches the value of his portfolio grow.

Updates on the Big Chill

Following up on yesterday's post:

The Daily Mail of London asks "Whatever happened to global warming?"

From the United States Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works:  "More than 650 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims."

The science reporter for the Houston Chronicle muses:  "The problem is that some climate scientists and environmentalists have been so determined to see something done about carbon dioxide emissions -- now -- that they have glossed over the uncertainties.  Uncertainties like: maybe there isn't a linear relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature, and maybe the planet will cool for a couple of decades even as carbon dioxide emissions accelerate."

Reporter Andrew Bolt, writing in the Herald-Sun of Australia about the turnabout in reporting at the BBC (see my post from yesterday for the BBC article):  "This is like the moment in the Emperor’s New Clothes, in which the boy calls out:  'But he’s naked.'"

Even The New York Times weighs in with an article questioning the relevence of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:  "Specialists in climate modeling warn that governments may have overinflated expectations that science can reliably forecast how global warming will play out locally."

The question now is whether any of the growing skepticism will lead to the death of the disastrous cap and trade bill now under consideration in the United States Senate.

I Feel a Chill in the Air

The concept of "global warming" has become a religion to its followers, with all of the elements required to qualify as a religion.  The god of global warmism?  Mother Earth.  The prophet? Al Gore.  The sacred text?  The proceedings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a creation of--what else?--the United Nations.  And of course, the central tenent:  that the Earth's climate is warming and that mankind is responsible.  The Global Warmists have been such successful evangelists of their religion that their central tenet (see above) is now taught in schools as irrefutable fact.  The mainstream media breathlessly reports every pronouncement from the Prophet and presents those who question the central tenet as mouth-breathing, imbecilic heretics.  The Prophet even received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, which, when combined with President Obama's 2009 award, proves that the prize panel has little interest in peace and a lot of interest in liberal political causes.

But in a jaw-dropping development, the BBC has published an article that dares to question the central tenet of Global Warmism.   The article points out that the warmest year on record--1998--was more than ten years ago and that since then, global temperatures have moderated "even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise." Oh my goodness!  And from the BBC no less, which is hardly a bastion of conservative thought.  The article goes on to quote scientists with differing viewpoints about future climate issues, and it concludes that, "it seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over."

Nevertheless, American liberals and their allies in Congress are trying to push a "cap and trade" carbon emission bill that would result in massive tax increases on American businesses and massive increases in the prices that every American must pay for energy and other goods.  Among other things, the cap and trade bill could signal the end of the American coal industry, putting an end to the source of more than half of all electricity generated in the United States today.  And closer to home, the end of the coal industry would mean incredible hardship for the State of West Virginia and its citizens, where tax revenue generated by the coal industry provides the bulk of state revenue and where wages and benefits paid by the coal industry provide the highest-paying blue collar jobs available.

A new documentary film will be released on October 18 titled, "Not Evil, Just Wrong" that dares to ask the questions that have been ignored by the mainstream media.  The film also addresses the hardships that will be imposed upon the world's poorest people if the Global Warmists have their way.  But you ask:  how could this be?  Liberals are all about the poor!  In truth, liberal policies have been harming the poor and keeping them down for decades.  By working to eliminate cheap and plentiful carbon-based fuel sources, the Global Warmists will guarantee massive increases in the cost of energy around the world, costs that will fall the hardest upon those peoples who would benefit the most from new development and new jobs created by cheap energy.

Obama Wins Heisman!!

The Nobel Farce

I thought I would be writing today about the peculiar mathematics of the newest version of Obamacare as set up by Senator Max Baucus.  You know the math I mean:  the math that says that the government can spend a Trillion Dollars on health care and REDUCE the federal budget deficit.  And write about it I will, but not today, because events have overtaken the health care debate.

What, I ask, has Barack Obama done to merit the Nobel Peace Prize?  The man has been in office for nine months, and the United States is still involved in every single conflict in which it was involved when he took office.  He said he would close Gitmo . . . but he hasn't.  He said we would be out of Iraq . . . but we aren't.  He is currently considering whether to commit tens of thousands of additional American soldiers to the conflict in Afghanistan, an option that is still on the table despite the rhetoric of the surrender monkeys who are advising him.  He has not negotiated any treaties with Iran or North Korea to stop nuclear proliferation.

From what I have read so far, it appears that the world agrees with me.

From the liberal writer Peter Beinart on The Daily Beast:

I like Barack Obama as much as the next liberal, but this is a farce. He’s done nothing to deserve the prize. Sure, he’s given some lovely speeches and launched some initiatives—on Iran, Israeli-Palestinian peace, climate change and nuclear disarmament—that might, if he’s really lucky and really good, make the world a more safe, more just, more peaceful world. But there’s absolutely no way to know if he’ll succeed, and by giving him the Nobel Prize as a kind of “atta boy,” the Nobel Committee is actually just highlighting the gap that conservatives have long highlighted: between Obamamania as global hype and Obama’s actual accomplishments.

From Michael Binyon at The Times of London:

The spectacle of Mr Obama mounting the podium in Oslo to accept a prize that once went to Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Mother Theresa would be all the more absurd if it follows a White House decision to send up to 40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan.

From uber-liberal Mickey Kaus writing at Slate about what Obama should do with the prize:

Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he's honored but he hasn't had the time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Result: He gets at least the same amount of glory--and helps solve his narcissism problem and his Fred Armisen ('What's he done?') problem, demonstrating that he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he's started to realize it. ... Plus he doesn't have to waste time, during a fairly crucial period, working on yet another grand speech.

I won't even go to the trouble of posting what the conservative press has to say about it.  When Mickey Kaus says that Obama has a narcissism problem, then I think the President needs to worry.

Obviously, the Nobel Peace Prize had little credibility even before this decision.  For goodness' sake, the Nobel Committee previously awarded the peace prize to the terrorist and mass murderer Yasir Arafat.  Nevertheless, the symbolism of awarding the prize to Obama is nothing more than political grandstanding.  The President should decline the award and suggest that the Committee award it to one of the other, worthy, nominees.

The Obama Stimulus Plan: Fantasy vs. Reality

The most recent unemployment figures from the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics show an unemployment rate in September of 9.8% and a loss of 263,000 jobs during the month, despite the fact that we are now in the sixth month following passage of President Obama's massive $800 Billion "stimulus" plan. Just to give a bit of flavor to that number, in digits it is written as $800,000,000,000, or approximately $2,667 for every man, woman and child in the United States.  The "stimulus" plan passed through Congress without a single Republican vote in the House of Representatives and with only three Republican votes in the Senate.  The Republicans argued that the "stimulus" plan would not produce the desired effect of growing the economy and putting Americans back to work.  From where I sit, it looks like the Republicans were correct.

In a report prepared to hype the passage of a stimulus plan, President-elect Obama's chief economic advisor stated in January that the massive government spending program (for purposes of the report, assumed to be $775 Billion) would hold unemployment to 8% in the third quarter of 2009.  She also stated that without the "stimulus", unemployment would reach 8.75% in the third quarter of 2009.  So, based upon the Administration's own projections, the Obama "stimulus" plan has accomplished less than nothing since the actual unemployment rate WITH the "stimulus" plan exceeds the projected unemployment rate WITHOUT the "stimulus" plan.

Oh, but I know what my liberal friends are thinking:  it is all George W. Bush's fault.  Isn't it always?  At what point will the current economic problems cease to be George W. Bush's fault?  My guess:  as soon as the economy shows signs of life, at which point the credit will all miraculously belong to President Obama.

The better approach for actual economic stimulation would have been to reduce the capital gains tax rate to zero and to provide tax incentives to employers who hire new employees (such as a temporary cut in the employer's portion of the payroll tax).  This approach, coupled with a modest targeted spending package on infrastructure that would have created constuction jobs, would have been far superior to Obama's failed policy of special interest spending.

Dispatch from the Fever Swamps

It infuriates me that when trying to discuss real issues with liberals, they always speak in generalities and they always claim moral superiority.  When Glenn Beck says something outrageous, he is inciting a right wing coup d'etat, but when Keith Olbermann says something outrageous, he is simply stating a truism.  What difference does it make that a Republican Congressman shouted "You lie!" to President Obama while a Democratic Congressman shouted on the floor of the House of Representatives that the Republican health care plan calls for everyone who is sick to "Die Quickly"?  Neither comment added anything to the debate.  For goodness' sake, cannot we just discuss the issues on the merits?

I am rambling on this topic because I visited the fever swamps today, specifically the online edition of The Nation, and I came away infected.  In this article, written by one "Leslie Savan," we learn that, when it comes to overheated rhetoric, the lefties are all just lovable teddy bears, while the righties are extremists of the worse sort:

The thing about liberals is they do this [denounce George W. Bush] standing naked in a shower and come out merely wet and spluttering. The thing about rightwingers is they work themselves up into a similar rage, strap on a .45 loaded with dum-dums, and go to political meetings screaming that something must be done about Adolf Obama--or maybe write columns seriously suggesting a military coup "to resolve the 'Obama problem.'"

Yep, that's us alright.  Now, where did I put my .45?

This is Our West Virginia

Charles Ryan Associates has produced a new video for the West Virginia Chamber highlighting various facts about West Virginia.  The video has some great scenes from around the State, including Bridge Day jumping and whitewater rafting, among others.  Check it out.

Whole Foods and the Health Care Debate

John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods Market, Inc., recently penned an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal in which he denouced the planned government takeover of health care.  As a result, he was demonized by the liberal media and other special interests for which government-run health care is a sacred cow.  This past weekend, Mr. Mackey sat down for an interview with The Wall Street Journal to discuss a wide variety of topics, including the fallout from his op-ed piece, the creative power of capitalism, the greed represented by out-of-control CEO pay, and other issues.  He is a fascinating man.  Check out the interview.

Attacking the Messenger

An article in today's Washington Post reveals that the White House is so afraid of having to deal with the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan that it is now resorting to discrediting its own commanding general, Stanley McChrystal.  It seems that the Obama Administration does not like the idea that it might have to commit more troops to bring the Afghan situation under control, so General McChrystal's statement that Afghanistan will be lost without more troops is, well, inconvenient.  From the article:

[S]enior White House officials challenged [McChrystal] over his dire assessment of the war, and what it will take to improve the U.S. position there, during a videoconference from Kabul with President Obama and his national security team. Obama then summoned McChrystal to Copenhagen the day after the general's speech for a private meeting aboard Air Force One.

Speaking on CNN's "State of the Union," [Obama National Security Advisor James] Jones said he had not spoken to Obama since the president met with McChrystal. But he indicated that the Obama administration, facing the most far-reaching foreign policy decision of its time in office, expects McChrystal and his military superiors to broaden the range of alternatives for how best to proceed in Afghanistan as the strategy review unfolds over the coming weeks.

Well now, that's the spirit!  If you don't like the answer given to you by your military advisor, then just tell him to go back to the drawing board and bring you a different answer--excuse me--alternative.  The Administration has had its hands on McChrystal's report for weeks, yet it still has not figured out what to do with the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.  Commiting more troops to the effort would be unpopular, but failing to commit more troops would mean the continued resurrection of the Taliban, the fall of the current government, and a renewed safe haven for al Qaeda.

Will President Obama choose to lead, or will he cave in order to please his liberal base?

Should We Care What Everyone Else Thinks?

In an interesting op-ed in today's New York Times, former Congressman John Miller discusses the history of America's popularity abroad.  He notes, for example, that America was popular in France and Britain in 1939, when they needed us, but by 1945, when the war was won, we were unpopular--again.  So why the fixation by the left, including the Obama Administration, with what the rest of the world thinks of us?   Congressman Miller has the answer for President Obama if he wants us to be popular abroad:

History suggests that there is only one sure way for President Obama to ensure the popularity of the United States abroad: reduce the power of the United States or simply don’t exercise it — either militarily, economically or even diplomatically. The world simply distrusts the big guy on the block, and the only way to address this is to stop behaving like a superpower.

Is this really the approach that the Obama Administration wants to take?  President Obama's actions on the world stage indicate that the answer is "yes."  From sitting down with the Iranians with no pre-conditions, to backing away from SDI deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic, the President seems to want to avoid the exercise of American power regardless of the cost to our own interests. 

The correct course of action is to formulate American foreign policy on the basis of what is best for America.  America should always, always, act according to its own best interests and not just in ways that will make us "popular."  Congressman Miller agrees:

A much better option, of course, would be to pay less attention to foreign opinion surveys and more to our own ideals and interests.

Well said.

17 Years

Seventeen years ago today, a new little person entered my world and immediately captured my heart.  She has had it ever since.  I was completely unprepared for fatherhood--is anyone ever prepared?--but I have found that she has been forgiving of my shortcomings.  The time has passed too quickly, and now she is a young woman, a junior in high school, who will soon be going on her own way.  She has little room at this stage of her life for sentimentality, but I grow more sentimental every day.  I can still remember holding her in my lap and reading stories to her:

Happy birthday, Emily.

Obama's Spending Mania

Anyone who knows me knows that my biggest complaint about former President George W. Bush was his runaway spending.  In concert with a Republican Congress that should have known better (and that was punished for it at the polls in 2006 and 2008), President Bush ushered in the age of Republican Party Big Government.  From the federalization of public education under "No Child Left Behind" to the massive bailouts of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, President Bush proved that he knew how to spend my money.  But how about President Obama?  Now, there is a politician who really knows how to spend my money.  In an article for The American, Veronique de Rugy provides graphic evidence of the massive spending of the Obama Administration:

Oh my.  Read the article, and remember that the projected deficits of the Obama years do not factor in the massive costs of his proposed health care "reforms".

College Football: Where Fortunes Quickly Change

The Hokies are now ranked No. 6, higher than any other team with one loss.  After the Alabama loss, I would never have thought that Tech had any chance to be mentioned in the same breath as "national championship."  And after the horrible showing against Nebraska, where only Tyrod Taylor's heroics in the waning seconds prevented another loss, I wondered whether we were looking at a 4 or 5 loss season.  But fortunes change quickly in the world of college football.  The Hokies are looking good today, but a loss anywhere else on the schedule will put a quick end to national championship talk, swinging the pendulum back in the other direction.

One more thought:  where else on the web do you get comments about college football and nuclear proliferation on the same page?

The Case for a Hard Line with the Iranians

I ran across this opinion piece in today's The Times (of London) regarding the upcoming direct talks between the United States and Iran.  The author, Rosemary Righter, whom I have not previously encountered, outlines a strategy for exploiting the chinks in the armour of the current Iranian regime.  I do not expect that anything she recommends will be taken up by the American negotiators dispatched by the Obama Administration, but one can dream.  I do not believe that a sit down with the Iranians is a good idea, particularly by this Administration, since Obama has already played his hand that appeasement will be his method of operation.  It is too bad that what little opportunity is created by such discussions will not be leveraged to any useful end.

Sarkozy Calls Obama "Naive" about Iran

The world diplomatic landscape has surely changed when the President of the French Republic takes a harder line on Iranian nuclear proliferation than the President of the United States.  As reported in The Independent of Dublin (the one in Ireland, not the one in Ohio), President Sarkozy mocked President Obama as "naive" following Obama's speech to the United Nations.  As quoted in the article, Sarkozy had the following to say about Obama's speech:

"We live in a real world not a virtual world," the Frenchman told the 15-member council. "And the real world expects us to make decisions.  President Obama dreams of a world without weapons . . . but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.  Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.  I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community?  More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map," he continued, referring to Israel.

Thank heavens someone is actually saying it.  If you were looking for The New York Times to report on President Sarkozy's comments, you would still be waiting.  The Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece today about Sarkozy's tongue-lashing of Obama, but little else can be found in American newspapers.  Now that "The Chosen One" has fallen on his face, the American media, which have been his cheerleaders since he announced his candidacy, can only avoid embarrassment by hiding the news from the American people.

Dealing with a Nuclear Iran

In case you weren't paying attention, the world has learned that Iran now has a second uranium enrichment facility to supply the material for nuclear weapons.  And over the past few days, Iran has been flexing its muscles by test firing a variety of short and medium range missles. The tested missles could easily reach all of Israel, and some of the missles could even reach portions of southern Europe.

In a sane world, this news would be greeted by every sensible nation with alarm.  But the Obama Administration, along with the surrender monkeys of western Europe, have responded only with a promise of additional sanctions.  Well guess what:  sanctions have not worked before, and they will not work now.  Furthermore, the sanctions that are in place now are not even being enforced:  for example, our allies in Germany turn a blind eye when German industrial firms provide equipment to Iran that is necessary to make the nuclear program operate.  And Russia will render any additional sanctions meaningless by providing Iran with everything it needs.  The Iranian marketplace deposits lots of money into Medvedev and Putin's treasury.

So what happens now?  We can be certain that for the Obama Administration and NATO, a military response is absolutely out of the question.  Obama cannot even muster the strength to follow the recommendations of his commanding general in Afghanistan--a war that Obama called "necessary" during the campaign--because he is afraid of his "progressive" base.  And Obama's brand of "shame on you" diplomacy makes him the laughing stock of tyrants the world over.

The only nation that truly grasps the implications of the present situation is Israel.  In 1981, Israel launched an air strike that disabled Iraq's early efforts at a nuclear weapons program, and I do not doubt for a second that Israel is already formulating a plan for a pre-emptive strike against Iran.  Israel has to do it.  The Iranian regime is openly commited to a policy of destroying Israel--literally wiping it off the map.  I will make no prediction about when the strike will come, but come it will. 

I commend to you a great piece in today's Wall Street Journal by Eliot Cohen on the limited options left for dealing with a nuclear Iran.

A New Beginning

I created this blog way back in 2007 as a place where I would comment on current events.  I kept up pretty well for a while, but then I lost interest.  Perhaps the cardiac bypass surgery in 2008 had something to do with it, or perhaps it was all the other changes that were happening in my life at the time.

I have been posting commentary on my Facebook page recently, and I have actually received some feedback, so I think the time has come to turn my attention back to this blog.  I deleted all of the old content because, well, just because.  I am beginning anew.  Here's to new beginnings.