What exactly is so bad about our healthcare system? An individual can purchase an HMO plan for around $1,500 a year or a family can purchase HMO plan for around $3,000 a year which entitles you to the best healthcare available in any country on the planet earth with little to no co-pay. Those that don't have insurance are still provided with free healthcare when needed because Federal Law requires that all hospitals must provide emergency care to anyone that comes within 250 yards of an emergency room regardless of ability or willingness to pay. America also has an extensive system of low or no cost community healthcare centers and free healthcare clinics that provide even the basic services such as annual exams for free or sliding scale costs. Heck...Over $1,000 are spent annually on charity care for every man, woman and child that is uninsured in America (that’s over $45 billion annually). The U.S. even allows “compassionate entry” permission to Mexican citizens in border towns that need medical assistance, in which they are picked up by ambulance at the border and transported to emergency rooms in American hospitals to receive free healthcare.
Not that there are even that many people that are truly un-insured in America. Democrats claim there are 45 million uninsured but for a better look at the numbers check out www.freemarketcure.com and you will see that only about 18 million out of the 307,481,017 (http://www.census.gov/ ) Americans are truly uninsured. Less than 6% of Americans! I will break down the rest for you at the bottom of this email and you can see that the others are able to afford or receive health insurance but CHOOSE not to on their own. (see below). And keep in mind that every nation has a group of people that refuse to participate in society or take responsibility for their own wellbeing. They wouldn’t comply even if our government attempted to force them to receive regular healthcare.
Not to mention that putting our basic needs into the hands of the government (which is corrupt and doesn't care about us and refuse to even be on this same plan they are proposing for us because they know it is garbage) is extremely dangerous. Look at every program the government has been in charge of. Public education...in shambles, post office...like $13 billion in debt this year and they gave raises to all their upper execs, Retirement (social security), medicaid, medicare, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (mortgage companies)...all VERY in debt and failing. Now look at the private owned alternatives...private schools = great!, Fed-Ex or UPS=doing great, private retirement accounts like ROTH IRA's or 401K's...just fine! If there is a problem it is because the government is involved (bought off to place regulations) and they best way to fix it is to REMOVE government not add more government to it!
This isn't the first time that gov't. interference had a negative impact. We all know that this economic crisis began with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Gov't. tells us they needed to be regulated and we believe it. In reality, it was gov't. involvement that CAUSED the crisis. Fannie and Freddie were gov't. subsidized and knew full well that when the Clinton Admin. began pushing them to make risky loans, they went right on ahead with it knowing full well that they would be bailed out if needed. If gov't. wasn't in the picture, they wouldn't have made those risky loans because they wouldn't have had the safety net and would have gone out of business. Our gov't. involvement in the private sector had and continues to ruin this country that was founded on the principles of the free-market and Laissez Faire Capitalism. Coincidentally, were you surprised to find out that they paid Obama, and Hillary, and Chris Dowd and the democrats a ton of money. If you want exact amounts paid to each candidate I have them and would be happy to send them to you). They were bought off! Big surprise!
Another example...the Cash for Clunkers program: The gov't. took $2.88 billion from us in taxes to fund this program and is paying $1.22 billion to the dealers?! Where is the rest of the money going?! And we want to trust them with our healthcare?! Why do people insist on trusting government when it has always been the same through Republican and Demcrat! STOP putting your basic needs in the hands of shady people that don't care about you.
All that and if you really have a problem with insurance yet...keep in mind that the reason insurance is so high right now is BECAUSE of the government. They have been bought off by the insurance companies and currently there are regulations that only allow us to purchase insurance from the company in our state, so they have no competition and jack up their prices and we have to pay what they ask if we want coverage. If they would remove regulations and allow the competition between the insurance companies (so we could all buy insurance from ANY company in ANY state) you may see prices come down and quality go up so they have to compete for our business. So if government involvement is the reason for the current problem, how will MORE gov't. involvement help the situation?
They couldn't even make universal healthcare just for Children in one state (Hawaii) last more than 7 months because it went bankrupt and left all the kids without insurance...it will be impossible and destructive and dangerous. If you think healthcare is expensive now...just wait until it's "free"! ;-) I agree we need reform on healthcare but we need to do the OPPOSITE of putting our gov't. in charge of it. We need to free up the gov't. involvement, remove regulation and allow competition. I have some good reading material I can send you if you want on how to fix it up.
BTW...They say our economy is improving after spending only $68 billion of the $780 billion they took from us in taxes to stimulate the economy...do you think we're gonna get the rest of that money back?
I've got tons of horror stories of national healthcare from Canada and England and France. The doctors all leave to where they can make more money and aren't controlled by the government. The program starts going bankrupt just like social security and all of our other government run programs so they try to prolong it by raising taxes for it and decreasing benefits. First they say they won't cover vision or dental and then annual check ups and then cancer screenings and pretty soon they tell you that you are too old or terminaly sick anyway so they won't pay the money to help you. SCARY! They are already doing it with social security here. They have raised taxes for it, cut benefits and want to raise the retirement age. The same will happen with healthcare just like in every other country that tried it and like with every other program that our government has tried to run.
Bryan
Here is a good breakdown of the un-insured in America from www.freemarketcure.com
Who are the Uninsured in America?
45 million Americans without health insurance?
• 17 million (38%) live in households with an annual income of $50,000+
• 9 million (20%) live in households with an annual income of $75,000+
1. They choose not to spend their money on insurance even though they can afford it.
• 14 million (31%) are eligible for government healthcare programs such as Medicaid but choose not to enroll.
1. Over $1,000 are spent annually on charity care for every man, woman and child that is
uninsured in America (that’s over $45 billion annually).
2. America has an extensive system of low or no cost community healthcare centers and free
healthcare clinics that provide even the basic services such as annual exams for free or
sliding scale costs.
• 14 million (31%) are illegal immigrants but still receive free charity care.
1. The U.S. even allows “compassionate entry” permission to Mexican citizens in border towns
that need medical assistance, in which they are picked up by ambulance at the border and
transported to emergency rooms in American hospitals to receive free healthcare.
• 18 million (40%) are ages 18-34 and spend more than 400% more on alcohol, tobacco, entertainment and dining than on out of pocket expenses for healthcare.
1. All are treated if needed, but few ever pay.
2. Federal Law requires that all hospitals must provide emergency care to anyone that comes
within 250 yards of an emergency room regardless of ability or willingness to pay.
• 8 million (18%) of the 45 million are truly uninsured.
1. NOTE: Every nation has a group of people that refuse to participate in society or take
responsibility for their own wellbeing. They wouldn’t comply even if our government
attempted to force them to receive regular healthcare.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Track Record Of American Gov't. Programs
The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775 - they've had 234 years to get it right; it is broke, and even though heavily subsidized, it can't compete with private sector FedEx and UPS services.
Social Security was established in 1935 - they've had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.
Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - they've had 71 years to get it right; it is broke. Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - they've had 39 years to get it right; it is broke. Together Fannie and Freddie have now led the entire world into the worst economic collapse in 80 years.
The War on Poverty was started in 1964 - they've had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our hard earned money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; it hasn't worked.
Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - they've had 44 years to get it right; they are both broke; and now our government dares to mention them as models for all US health care.
AMTRAK was established in 1970 - they've had 39 years to get it right; last year they bailed it out as it continues to run at a loss!
This year, a trillion dollars was committed in the massive political payoff called the Stimulus Bill of 2009; it shows NO sign of working; it's been used to increase the size of governments across America , and raise government salaries while the rest of us suffer from economic hardships. It has yet to create a single new private sector job. Our national debt projections (approaching $10 trillion) have increased 400% in the last six months.
"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009 - - after 80% of the cars purchased turned out to be produced by foreign companies, and dealers nationwide are buried under bureaucratic
paperwork demanded by a government that is not yet paying them what was promised.
So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that each and every "service" shoved down our throats by an over-reaching government turns into disaster, how could any informed American trust our government to run or even set policies for America 's health care system - - 17% of our economy?
Maybe each of us has a personal responsibility to let others in on this brilliant record before 2010, and then help remove from office those who are voting to destroy capitalism and destroy our grandchildren's future.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people under the pretence of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson
Social Security was established in 1935 - they've had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.
Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - they've had 71 years to get it right; it is broke. Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - they've had 39 years to get it right; it is broke. Together Fannie and Freddie have now led the entire world into the worst economic collapse in 80 years.
The War on Poverty was started in 1964 - they've had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our hard earned money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; it hasn't worked.
Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - they've had 44 years to get it right; they are both broke; and now our government dares to mention them as models for all US health care.
AMTRAK was established in 1970 - they've had 39 years to get it right; last year they bailed it out as it continues to run at a loss!
This year, a trillion dollars was committed in the massive political payoff called the Stimulus Bill of 2009; it shows NO sign of working; it's been used to increase the size of governments across America , and raise government salaries while the rest of us suffer from economic hardships. It has yet to create a single new private sector job. Our national debt projections (approaching $10 trillion) have increased 400% in the last six months.
"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009 - - after 80% of the cars purchased turned out to be produced by foreign companies, and dealers nationwide are buried under bureaucratic
paperwork demanded by a government that is not yet paying them what was promised.
So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that each and every "service" shoved down our throats by an over-reaching government turns into disaster, how could any informed American trust our government to run or even set policies for America 's health care system - - 17% of our economy?
Maybe each of us has a personal responsibility to let others in on this brilliant record before 2010, and then help remove from office those who are voting to destroy capitalism and destroy our grandchildren's future.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people under the pretence of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Healthcare Rationing: Real Scary - Newt Gingrich
http://www.healthtransformation.net/cs/opeds_news?pressrelease.id=2880
August 16, 2009
Concerns about government bureaucracies gaining oversight of your treatment are not misplaced. We need reforms, but the answer is not central planning.
By Newt Gingrich
When Sarah Palin said that the emerging healthcare reform legislation would lead to "death panels" and government rationing of care, her language was explosive, but her premise about rationing was not.
The most critical test of any reform proposal is whether it will empower individuals or impose on them. It is a fact that the leading bills in Congress would increase the power of government and decrease individual freedom. You cannot spend an additional $1 trillion of taxpayer money and reduce the role of government. You will get new bureaucracies, more regulation, more complexity. That means you will have less control of your healthcare.
Disagree? Just read the versions of healthcare legislation:H.R.3200 in the House. One key proposal is to mandate an "essential benefit package" for every private insurance policy sold in the United States. Currently, individuals and employers usually make these coverage decisions. This legislation creates a new federal Health Benefits Advisory Committee that would decide instead. For example, if you are a single male with no children, the legislation still requires you to have maternity benefits and well-baby and well-child care coverage. You don't want or don't need that coverage? Sorry, you have to pay for it anyway.
Other planned agencies would give the federal government unprecedented and unaccountable control over your healthcare. The so-called Health Choices Administration and the National Health Insurance Exchange would set various standards for all health insurance policies. The president is also pushing for another new agency called the Independent Medicare Advisory Council. Described as a cost-control initiative,it would be made up of five government appointees who would, by determining Medicare reimbursement amounts, in essence decide what would be covered and what would not. The fear of government rationing is based on the premise that once government has such power, especially the ability to control what is covered by your private insurance policy, it also has the power to deny and restrict.
Those defending the House legislation claim rationing is not in any of its versions, and though that is technically true -- no one wants rationing -- the unprecedented power this legislation would grant to virtually unaccountable government agencies is all but certain to lead to rationing.
Consider Medicare, which is projected to go broke within the decade. As the baby-boom generation ages, it will put only more stress on the system. With more than 25% of all Medicare costs generated in the last two months of life, government already has the motive to ration care to the elderly. If the House legislation were to become law, these new government bureaucracies would then also potentially have the power. Are we supposed to trust that they won't use it?
If such rationing occurs, rules will be needed to determine whether to spend federal healthcare dollars on a given individual. What might those rules look like? Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is a key healthcare advisor to President Obama and the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He co-wrote an academic article(09)60137- in January exploring the ethical challenges of valuing an individual's life in the context of allocating medical resources that are very scarce, such as organs or vaccines.
As an example, he and his coauthors proposed a system of valuation that could take into account that "[a] young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses."
In a 1996 article in another journal, Dr. Emanuel similarly hypothesized that "services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."
Dr. Emanuel contends that he was exploring what rules might be used to ration care, not specifically prescribing policy. But isn't that the point? What we see at town hall meetings are Americans who legitimately believe it would be fundamentally unjust for government panels to make these kind of ethical decisions instead of individuals, loved ones and doctors.
To be clear, the healthcare system is in need of reform, particularly health insurance. But the answer is not central planning. The answer is more market competition -- giving consumers more choices, more information and more control.
Here is one example. There are more than 1,300 health insurance companies in this country, but currently, consumers can buy only a product licensed in each individual state. Creating a nationwide health insurance market where any individual or group can shop for less expensive coverage from another state would provide more choices, forcing private plans to create better products, improve services and lower prices.
We must also equip individuals with information on healthcare cost and quality. Releasing the Medicare-claims history of doctors and hospitals (with patients' personal information removed) would give Americans more knowledge to choose the most efficient institutions, practitioners and the most effective treatments. Inexplicably, this taxpayer-funded data remain locked away.
Of course, some Americans also need financial resources to pay for their healthcare choices. Tax credits are one way to help consumers purchase private healthcare coverage, or we could allow individuals to deduct the cost of insurance they purchase, just as employers do now. These are just some solutions to create competition to drive down costs while increasing quality.
There is no doubt that we badly need to improve our healthcare system. I welcome the comprehensive debate now taking place across the country on how to accomplish this goal. But reform must empower individuals, not government.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is founder of the Center for Health Transformation.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
August 16, 2009
Concerns about government bureaucracies gaining oversight of your treatment are not misplaced. We need reforms, but the answer is not central planning.
By Newt Gingrich
When Sarah Palin said that the emerging healthcare reform legislation would lead to "death panels" and government rationing of care, her language was explosive, but her premise about rationing was not.
The most critical test of any reform proposal is whether it will empower individuals or impose on them. It is a fact that the leading bills in Congress would increase the power of government and decrease individual freedom. You cannot spend an additional $1 trillion of taxpayer money and reduce the role of government. You will get new bureaucracies, more regulation, more complexity. That means you will have less control of your healthcare.
Disagree? Just read the versions of healthcare legislation:H.R.3200 in the House. One key proposal is to mandate an "essential benefit package" for every private insurance policy sold in the United States. Currently, individuals and employers usually make these coverage decisions. This legislation creates a new federal Health Benefits Advisory Committee that would decide instead. For example, if you are a single male with no children, the legislation still requires you to have maternity benefits and well-baby and well-child care coverage. You don't want or don't need that coverage? Sorry, you have to pay for it anyway.
Other planned agencies would give the federal government unprecedented and unaccountable control over your healthcare. The so-called Health Choices Administration and the National Health Insurance Exchange would set various standards for all health insurance policies. The president is also pushing for another new agency called the Independent Medicare Advisory Council. Described as a cost-control initiative,it would be made up of five government appointees who would, by determining Medicare reimbursement amounts, in essence decide what would be covered and what would not. The fear of government rationing is based on the premise that once government has such power, especially the ability to control what is covered by your private insurance policy, it also has the power to deny and restrict.
Those defending the House legislation claim rationing is not in any of its versions, and though that is technically true -- no one wants rationing -- the unprecedented power this legislation would grant to virtually unaccountable government agencies is all but certain to lead to rationing.
Consider Medicare, which is projected to go broke within the decade. As the baby-boom generation ages, it will put only more stress on the system. With more than 25% of all Medicare costs generated in the last two months of life, government already has the motive to ration care to the elderly. If the House legislation were to become law, these new government bureaucracies would then also potentially have the power. Are we supposed to trust that they won't use it?
If such rationing occurs, rules will be needed to determine whether to spend federal healthcare dollars on a given individual. What might those rules look like? Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is a key healthcare advisor to President Obama and the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He co-wrote an academic article(09)60137- in January exploring the ethical challenges of valuing an individual's life in the context of allocating medical resources that are very scarce, such as organs or vaccines.
As an example, he and his coauthors proposed a system of valuation that could take into account that "[a] young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses."
In a 1996 article in another journal, Dr. Emanuel similarly hypothesized that "services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."
Dr. Emanuel contends that he was exploring what rules might be used to ration care, not specifically prescribing policy. But isn't that the point? What we see at town hall meetings are Americans who legitimately believe it would be fundamentally unjust for government panels to make these kind of ethical decisions instead of individuals, loved ones and doctors.
To be clear, the healthcare system is in need of reform, particularly health insurance. But the answer is not central planning. The answer is more market competition -- giving consumers more choices, more information and more control.
Here is one example. There are more than 1,300 health insurance companies in this country, but currently, consumers can buy only a product licensed in each individual state. Creating a nationwide health insurance market where any individual or group can shop for less expensive coverage from another state would provide more choices, forcing private plans to create better products, improve services and lower prices.
We must also equip individuals with information on healthcare cost and quality. Releasing the Medicare-claims history of doctors and hospitals (with patients' personal information removed) would give Americans more knowledge to choose the most efficient institutions, practitioners and the most effective treatments. Inexplicably, this taxpayer-funded data remain locked away.
Of course, some Americans also need financial resources to pay for their healthcare choices. Tax credits are one way to help consumers purchase private healthcare coverage, or we could allow individuals to deduct the cost of insurance they purchase, just as employers do now. These are just some solutions to create competition to drive down costs while increasing quality.
There is no doubt that we badly need to improve our healthcare system. I welcome the comprehensive debate now taking place across the country on how to accomplish this goal. But reform must empower individuals, not government.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is founder of the Center for Health Transformation.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Top 10 Reasons Obamacare Is Wrong for America
- Millions Will Lose Their Current Insurance. Period. End of Story: President Obama wants Americans to believe they can keep their insurance if they like, but research from the government, private research firms, and think tanks show this is not the case. Proposed economic incentives, plus a government-run health plan like the one proposed in the House bill, would cause 88.1 million people to see their current employer-sponsored health plan disappear.
- Your Health Care Coverage Will Probably Change Anyway: Even if you kept your private insurance, eventually most remaining plans--whether employer plans or individual plans--would have to conform to new federal benefit standards. Moreover, the necessary plan "upgrades" will undoubtedly cost you more in premiums.
- The Umpire Is Also the First Baseman: The main argument for a "public option" is that it would increase competition. However, if the federal government creates a health care plan that it controls and also sets the rules for the private plans, there is little doubt that Washington would put its private sector "competitors" out of business sooner or later.
- The Fed Picks Your Treatment: President Obama said: "They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier. ... If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half for the thing that's going to make you well." Does that sound like a government that will stay out of your health care decisions?
- Individual Mandate Means Less Liberty and More Taxes: Although he once opposed the idea, President Obama is now open to the imposition of an individual mandate that would require all Americans to have federally approved health insurance. This unprecedented federal directive not only takes away your individual freedom but could cost you as well. Lawmakers are considering a penalty or tax for those who don't buy government-approved health plans.
- Higher Taxes Than Europe Hurt Small Businesses: A proposed surtax on the wealthy will actually hit hundreds of thousands of small business ownerswho are dealing with a recession. If it is enacted, America's top earners and job creators will carry a larger overall tax burden than France, Italy, Germany, Japan, etc., with a total average tax rate greater than 52%. Is that the right recipe for jobs and wage growth?
- Who Makes Medical Decisions? What is the right medical treatment and should bureaucrats determine what Americans can or cannot have? While the House and Senate language is vague, amendments offered in House and Senate committees to block government rationing of care were routinely defeated. Cost or a federal health board could be the deciding factors. President Obama himself admitted this when he said, "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," when asked about an elderly woman who needed a pacemaker.
- Taxpayer-Funded Abortions? Nineteen Democrats recently asked the President to not sign any bill that doesn't explicitly exclude "abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan" or any bill that allows a federal health board to "recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package." Currently, these provisions do not exist.
- It's Not Paid For: The CBO says the current House plan would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. And that number will likely continue to rise over the long term. Similar entitlement bills in the past, including Medicare, have scored much lower than their actual eventual cost.
- Rushing It, Not Reading It: We've been down this road before--with the failed stimulus package. Back then, we also heard that we were in a crisis and that we needed to pass a 1,000-plus-page bill in a few hours--without reading it--or we would have 8% unemployment. Well, we know what happened. Now, one Congressman has even said it's pointless to read one of the reform bills without two days and two lawyers to make sense of it. Deception is the only reason to rush through a bill nobody truly understands.
For more information, please visit: http://FixHealthCarePolicy.com
Friday, July 24, 2009
Texas Governor Raises Possiblilty of State's 10th Amendment Rights Showdown With White House Over ObamaCare!
http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1504240.html
Saturday, Jul 25, 2009
Posted on Thu, Jul. 23, 2009
Perry raises possibility of states' rights showdown with White House over healthcare
By DAVE MONTGOMERY
dmontgomery@star-telegram.com
AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry, raising the specter of a showdown with the Obama administration, suggested Thursday that he would consider invoking states’ rights protections under the 10th Amendment to resist the president’s healthcare plan, which he said would be "disastrous" for Texas.
Interviewed by conservative talk show host Mark Davis of Dallas’ WBAP/820 AM, Perry said his first hope is that Congress will defeat the plan, which both Perry and Davis described as "Obama Care." But should it pass, Perry predicted that Texas and a "number" of states might resist the federal health mandate.
"I think you’ll hear states and governors standing up and saying 'no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare," Perry said. "So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I’m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats."
Perry, the state’s longest-serving governor, has made defiance of Washington a hallmark of his state administration as well as his emerging re-election campaign against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the 2010 Republican primary. Earlier this year, Perry refused $555 million in federal unemployment stimulus money, saying it would subject Texas to long-term costs after the federal dollars ended.
Interviewed after returning from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, Perry spoke out against President Barack Obama’s healthcare package less than 24 hours after the president used a prime-time news conference Wednesday night to try to sell the massive legislative package to Congress and the public.
'Not the solution’
"It really is a state issue, and if there was ever an argument for the 10th Amendment and for letting the states find a solution to their problems, this may be at the top of the class," Perry said. "A government-run healthcare system is financially unstable. It’s not the solution."
Perry heartily backed an unsuccessful resolution in this year’s legislative session that would have affirmed the belief that Texas has sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.
In expressing "unwavering support" for the 10th Amendment resolution by state Rep. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, Perry said "federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens and its interference with the affairs of our state."
Returning to the "letter and spirit" of the 10th Amendment, he said in April, "will free our state from undue regulations and ultimately strengthen our union."
Perry, in his on-air interview Thursday with Davis, did not specify how he might use the 10th Amendment in opposing the Obama health plan. His spokeswoman, Allison Castle, said that the governor’s first goal is to defeat the plan in Congress and that any discussion of options beyond that would be "hypothetical."
"I don’t think it’s surprising that the governor is taking a stand against it," said Anne Dunkelberg, associate director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin-based research organization that supports the House version of Obama’s plan. "Unfortunately, the national dialogue on health reform has been extraordinarily partisan and polarized."
The White House Media Affairs Office, asked to comment on Perry’s statements, did not have an immediate response. In his remarks to the nation Wednesday, Obama restated his midsummer deadline for passage of the bill in Congress, saying it is urgently needed to help families "that are being clobbered by healthcare costs."
High stakes in Texas
Texas has a higher percentage of uninsured people than any other state, with 1 in 4 Texans lacking health coverage. Dunkelberg, whose organization supports policies to help low- and modest-income Texans, said the House version would create a "predictable and comprehensive benefits package" for thousands of struggling middle-income Texans.
Former Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth of Burleson, a senior fellow for healthcare at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, echoed Perry’s assertion that the Obama plan is the wrong approach and could have disastrous financial consequences for Texas.
Under the Senate version of the bill, she said, an expansion of the joint federal-state Medicaid program for the poor could cost Texas $4 billion a year.
"There are good solutions" to the country’s healthcare problems, Wohlgemuth said. "This isn’t it."
Perry said the plan is another example of the Obama administration’s "massive takeover of the private-sector economy."
"I hope our leaders will look for solutions that don’t dig our country further into debt," he said.
Perry called on Texans in the House and Senate to oppose the plan. "I can’t imagine that anyone from Texas who cares about this state would vote for Obama Care. I don’t care whether you’re Democrat or Republican," he said.
Of those Texans who might consider supporting the plan, he said: "This may sound a little bit harsh, but they might ought to consider representing some other state because they’re sure not representing Texas."
Saturday, Jul 25, 2009
Posted on Thu, Jul. 23, 2009
Perry raises possibility of states' rights showdown with White House over healthcare
By DAVE MONTGOMERY
dmontgomery@star-telegram.com
AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry, raising the specter of a showdown with the Obama administration, suggested Thursday that he would consider invoking states’ rights protections under the 10th Amendment to resist the president’s healthcare plan, which he said would be "disastrous" for Texas.
Interviewed by conservative talk show host Mark Davis of Dallas’ WBAP/820 AM, Perry said his first hope is that Congress will defeat the plan, which both Perry and Davis described as "Obama Care." But should it pass, Perry predicted that Texas and a "number" of states might resist the federal health mandate.
"I think you’ll hear states and governors standing up and saying 'no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare," Perry said. "So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I’m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats."
Perry, the state’s longest-serving governor, has made defiance of Washington a hallmark of his state administration as well as his emerging re-election campaign against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the 2010 Republican primary. Earlier this year, Perry refused $555 million in federal unemployment stimulus money, saying it would subject Texas to long-term costs after the federal dollars ended.
Interviewed after returning from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, Perry spoke out against President Barack Obama’s healthcare package less than 24 hours after the president used a prime-time news conference Wednesday night to try to sell the massive legislative package to Congress and the public.
'Not the solution’
"It really is a state issue, and if there was ever an argument for the 10th Amendment and for letting the states find a solution to their problems, this may be at the top of the class," Perry said. "A government-run healthcare system is financially unstable. It’s not the solution."
Perry heartily backed an unsuccessful resolution in this year’s legislative session that would have affirmed the belief that Texas has sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.
In expressing "unwavering support" for the 10th Amendment resolution by state Rep. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, Perry said "federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens and its interference with the affairs of our state."
Returning to the "letter and spirit" of the 10th Amendment, he said in April, "will free our state from undue regulations and ultimately strengthen our union."
Perry, in his on-air interview Thursday with Davis, did not specify how he might use the 10th Amendment in opposing the Obama health plan. His spokeswoman, Allison Castle, said that the governor’s first goal is to defeat the plan in Congress and that any discussion of options beyond that would be "hypothetical."
"I don’t think it’s surprising that the governor is taking a stand against it," said Anne Dunkelberg, associate director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin-based research organization that supports the House version of Obama’s plan. "Unfortunately, the national dialogue on health reform has been extraordinarily partisan and polarized."
The White House Media Affairs Office, asked to comment on Perry’s statements, did not have an immediate response. In his remarks to the nation Wednesday, Obama restated his midsummer deadline for passage of the bill in Congress, saying it is urgently needed to help families "that are being clobbered by healthcare costs."
High stakes in Texas
Texas has a higher percentage of uninsured people than any other state, with 1 in 4 Texans lacking health coverage. Dunkelberg, whose organization supports policies to help low- and modest-income Texans, said the House version would create a "predictable and comprehensive benefits package" for thousands of struggling middle-income Texans.
Former Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth of Burleson, a senior fellow for healthcare at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, echoed Perry’s assertion that the Obama plan is the wrong approach and could have disastrous financial consequences for Texas.
Under the Senate version of the bill, she said, an expansion of the joint federal-state Medicaid program for the poor could cost Texas $4 billion a year.
"There are good solutions" to the country’s healthcare problems, Wohlgemuth said. "This isn’t it."
Perry said the plan is another example of the Obama administration’s "massive takeover of the private-sector economy."
"I hope our leaders will look for solutions that don’t dig our country further into debt," he said.
Perry called on Texans in the House and Senate to oppose the plan. "I can’t imagine that anyone from Texas who cares about this state would vote for Obama Care. I don’t care whether you’re Democrat or Republican," he said.
Of those Texans who might consider supporting the plan, he said: "This may sound a little bit harsh, but they might ought to consider representing some other state because they’re sure not representing Texas."
Saturday, June 20, 2009
'45 Million Americans' -- Who Are These Uninsured Guys?
By Larry Elder · Thursday, 18 June 2009
About 45 million Americans lack health care insurance. Or do they?
A pro-"universal health care" television host recently cited this widely accepted "fact." The number is bogus.
Here's the skinny.
Start with the math. We have 300 million Americans. Subtract the 45 million -- 15 percent of us -- with no health insurance. That leaves 255 million Americans, or 85 percent, with it.
And the insurance is lousy, right? Not according to a 2006 ABC News/Kaiser Family Foundation/USA Today survey. It found that 89 percent of Americans were satisfied with the quality of their own health care.
Nearly half of the 45 million fall in the category of my 26-year-old nephew. He smokes cigarettes, dates, eats out, goes to movies and, like all young people, lives through his cell phone. With a slight change in priorities, he could afford health insurance, the cost of which at his age and health starts at about $100 a month. Take a look at a Reason Foundation video of interviews with a bunch of non-health-insured 20-somethings.
These Gen Xers copped to dropping money on clothes, booze, nightlife, the latest tech gizmos and other things of interest to them. With a change in priorities, these young folks -- far more representative of those without insurance than the forlorn husband and wife sitting on a porch swing -- could both afford and qualify for health insurance. They simply consider it a low priority.
Millions more can access health care -- through SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program), Medicaid or other government programs. But for whatever reason, 11 million people simply refuse to take advantage of them.
Several million other Americans who want insurance do, indeed, go without it -- for a time. Many are, however, between jobs, and most -- at some point -- will find employment that either offers health insurance or pays enough so that they can buy it. Millions more work at companies that offer health insurance, and for a few dollars out of every paycheck, they could add family members. They choose not to.
What about criminals without insurance? More than 2 million Americans -- with access to health care, by the way -- use jail, prison or penitentiary mailing addresses. And for every one behind bars, how many live among us who survive by theft, drug dealing, prostitution or some similar career path? Taxpayer health insurance for them, too?
So now we're down to the Americans without health insurance on a persistent, long-term basis. This is approximately 10-15 million, a big number to be sure. But does this warrant a government takeover of the entire health care system?
Lacking health care insurance is not the same as lacking health care. By law, most emergency rooms must provide health care -- to both legals and illegals. Yes, they stand in line, but no health insurance does not equal no health care.
Government (aka taxpayers) already pays half of our health care dollar, with programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and other federal and state plans. The stated goals are accessibility and affordability. Congress passed Medicare in 1965. In the 20 years before the program's inception, the cost of a day in a hospital increased threefold. In the 20 years following Medicare, a day in a hospital increased eightfold -- substantially higher than inflation over that period. Because of cost controls on government plans, providers increased the cost on everybody else.
So here's the question.
Do we allow a complete government takeover of the section of health care it doesn't already run, for 10-15 million or so without health insurance on a persistent basis? Again, 255 million Americans already have it. Many millions more could get it if they wanted to. And 89 percent of Americans are satisfied with the care they now receive.
What to do? Unleash the free market. Allow greater competition among health care providers. Decrease costly regulations that increase the price tag. Enable consumers to purchase insurance plans across state lines. Allow non-government-licensed paraprofessionals and others -- currently prevented by law from offering any medical services -- to provide low-cost care.
What about poor care and negligence? We have laws against force and fraud, as well as a common-law duty of care. That's why God created lawyers. (Just give us "loser pays.")
What about those who cannot afford it? What about those with pre-existing illnesses whose insurance applications carriers turned down? What's wrong with charity -- people helping people? America remains the most generous nation on the face of the earth. We donate more of our time and money than countries like England, Germany and Japan. During the Great Depression, before the New Deal, charitable giving skyrocketed. After the New Deal, charitable giving continued, but not at nearly the same rate. People expected government to address the problem, and taxpayers felt they gave at the office.
We can provide such "universal" coverage at a "low cost" -- through rationing. That means long lines, lower quality and less innovation for services that Americans currently take for granted.
Economists call it T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
CREATORS SYNDICATE COPYRIGHT 2009 LAURENCE A. ELDER
About 45 million Americans lack health care insurance. Or do they?
A pro-"universal health care" television host recently cited this widely accepted "fact." The number is bogus.
Here's the skinny.
Start with the math. We have 300 million Americans. Subtract the 45 million -- 15 percent of us -- with no health insurance. That leaves 255 million Americans, or 85 percent, with it.
And the insurance is lousy, right? Not according to a 2006 ABC News/Kaiser Family Foundation/USA Today survey. It found that 89 percent of Americans were satisfied with the quality of their own health care.
Nearly half of the 45 million fall in the category of my 26-year-old nephew. He smokes cigarettes, dates, eats out, goes to movies and, like all young people, lives through his cell phone. With a slight change in priorities, he could afford health insurance, the cost of which at his age and health starts at about $100 a month. Take a look at a Reason Foundation video of interviews with a bunch of non-health-insured 20-somethings.
These Gen Xers copped to dropping money on clothes, booze, nightlife, the latest tech gizmos and other things of interest to them. With a change in priorities, these young folks -- far more representative of those without insurance than the forlorn husband and wife sitting on a porch swing -- could both afford and qualify for health insurance. They simply consider it a low priority.
Millions more can access health care -- through SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program), Medicaid or other government programs. But for whatever reason, 11 million people simply refuse to take advantage of them.
Several million other Americans who want insurance do, indeed, go without it -- for a time. Many are, however, between jobs, and most -- at some point -- will find employment that either offers health insurance or pays enough so that they can buy it. Millions more work at companies that offer health insurance, and for a few dollars out of every paycheck, they could add family members. They choose not to.
What about criminals without insurance? More than 2 million Americans -- with access to health care, by the way -- use jail, prison or penitentiary mailing addresses. And for every one behind bars, how many live among us who survive by theft, drug dealing, prostitution or some similar career path? Taxpayer health insurance for them, too?
So now we're down to the Americans without health insurance on a persistent, long-term basis. This is approximately 10-15 million, a big number to be sure. But does this warrant a government takeover of the entire health care system?
Lacking health care insurance is not the same as lacking health care. By law, most emergency rooms must provide health care -- to both legals and illegals. Yes, they stand in line, but no health insurance does not equal no health care.
Government (aka taxpayers) already pays half of our health care dollar, with programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and other federal and state plans. The stated goals are accessibility and affordability. Congress passed Medicare in 1965. In the 20 years before the program's inception, the cost of a day in a hospital increased threefold. In the 20 years following Medicare, a day in a hospital increased eightfold -- substantially higher than inflation over that period. Because of cost controls on government plans, providers increased the cost on everybody else.
So here's the question.
Do we allow a complete government takeover of the section of health care it doesn't already run, for 10-15 million or so without health insurance on a persistent basis? Again, 255 million Americans already have it. Many millions more could get it if they wanted to. And 89 percent of Americans are satisfied with the care they now receive.
What to do? Unleash the free market. Allow greater competition among health care providers. Decrease costly regulations that increase the price tag. Enable consumers to purchase insurance plans across state lines. Allow non-government-licensed paraprofessionals and others -- currently prevented by law from offering any medical services -- to provide low-cost care.
What about poor care and negligence? We have laws against force and fraud, as well as a common-law duty of care. That's why God created lawyers. (Just give us "loser pays.")
What about those who cannot afford it? What about those with pre-existing illnesses whose insurance applications carriers turned down? What's wrong with charity -- people helping people? America remains the most generous nation on the face of the earth. We donate more of our time and money than countries like England, Germany and Japan. During the Great Depression, before the New Deal, charitable giving skyrocketed. After the New Deal, charitable giving continued, but not at nearly the same rate. People expected government to address the problem, and taxpayers felt they gave at the office.
We can provide such "universal" coverage at a "low cost" -- through rationing. That means long lines, lower quality and less innovation for services that Americans currently take for granted.
Economists call it T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
CREATORS SYNDICATE COPYRIGHT 2009 LAURENCE A. ELDER
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Uncle Sam's Plantation
Back on Uncle Sam's plantationStar Parker - Syndicated Columnist - 2/9/2009 8:00:00 AM
Six years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam's Plantation. I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.
I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas -- a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism. I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.
A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960's, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.
A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mind sets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"
Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems -- the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.
The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.
Through God's grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.
I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed 50 percent.
I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.
But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction. Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.
Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, "Thank you, Suh."
Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.
There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.
Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.
In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.
"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education."
Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability."
Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.
Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty."
Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.
It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.
Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?
Thursday, April 02, 2009
How the tax burden has changed since 1960
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29861648/#storyContinued
Treasury relies less on excise, corporate taxes, more on high-income people
By Tom Curry
April. 2, 2009
We have a new president, with a restless and far-reaching agenda — but how will the nation pay for that agenda?
For John F. Kennedy, elected in 1960, it was taxes and borrowing. For President Barack Obama, to whom JFK is often compared, the answer’s the same: taxes and borrowing.
But with the April 15 filing deadline looming, it’s worth noting that the tax system over which Obama presides isn’t the one workers knew two generations ago when Kennedy was entering the White House.
If you’re 70 today, you may have just retired, but do you recall that when you started working in 1960, making a beginner's wage, you paid only about $70 in payroll taxes? And that was for whole year, not for one week or one month.
The biggest tax change since 1960 is the growth in Social Security and Medicare taxes, also known as payroll taxes.
You may not think about them as you prepare your income tax returns, but for most taxpayers, payroll taxes are a bigger burden than income taxes. According to a report issued last week by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, for more than four out of five tax filers, employment taxes are a bigger burden than income taxes.
Growing importance of payroll taxes
And payroll taxes have become a larger source of revenue for the federal government than they were in 1960. Back then, they accounted for 16 cents of every dollar of federal tax revenues. Last year they accounted for about 35 cents of every revenue dollar.
Why? The Social Security tax rate today is more than twice as high as it was in 1960 and the amount of income subject to the tax is far bigger.
In 1960, only the first $4,800 of income was taxed — and at a rate of just three percent. This year the Social Security tax rate is more than twice as high, 6.2 percent, and the first $106,800 of earned income is taxed. (The amount subject to taxation goes up every year, using a formula based on increases in average wages.)
Another reason the payroll tax burden today is heavier than it was in 1960 is that 50 years ago there was no Medicare — and thus no Medicare tax (that didn’t arrive until 1966.)
Workers in 1960 didn’t have to pay the 1.45 percent Medicare tax which workers pay today. And that Medicare tax applies to all earned income, not just to the first $106,800, as the Social Security tax does.
One thing that has not changed appreciably since 1960: the biggest piece of the revenue pie comes from taxes on incomes. In 1960, 44 percent of all federal revenues came from income taxes, while in 2008, 46 percent came from the income tax.
Who bears the tax burden?
But what’s different is that the income tax burden is being carried to a greater extent today by upper-income people than it was 30 years ago, according to an analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office which tracks data going back to 1979.
In 1979, the top 10 percent of households, as measured by income, paid 40.6 percent of all federal taxes; other ninety percent paid 59.4 percent.
But by 2005, the top 10 percent accounted for nearly 55 percent of all federal tax revenues, while the rest of the population paid about 45 percent.
“In large part this is due to the large increase in the concentration of income, rather than a more progressive tax system,” said Joel Slemrod, the director of the Office of Tax Policy Research at the University of Michigan Business School.
Economists Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley find that the share of income going to the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution "was around 2.5 of total income in the 1970s and reached a peak above 9 percent of total income in 2000. In fact, most of the overall increase in the inequality of income has been driven by the very top of the income distribution...”
Measuring tax progressivity
Piketty and Saez say that “the federal tax system is clearly progressive,” that is, as a person’s income increases, the percentage of his income that he pays in taxes also increases.
One way tax experts use to measure the progressivity of a tax system is the effective tax rate, which is the total tax divided by total pre-tax income.
The Congressional Budget Office study found that a person in the middle of the income distribution (the middle fifth, if you divide the population by fifths according to income) paid an effective federal tax rate of 14.2 percent in 2005, while a person in the one percent of the population with the highest income had a effective tax rate of 31.2 percent.
People in the lowest fifth, or quintile, had an effective tax rate of 4.3 percent, partly because tax law changes in the past ten years removed many low-income people from the income tax rolls entirely. They pay only payroll taxes.
The lessening of the tax burden on the lowest quintile is a big change from 1979. That year, according to CBO, people in lowest income group (the bottom fifth of the income distribution) paid an effective federal tax rate of 8 percent.
But while Piketty and Saez say the tax system is “clearly progressive,” they seem to imply that it isn’t progressive enough, especially when it comes to the very top of the income pyramid.
Their concern is with using the tax code to bring about a more equal distribution of income. They say, “a tax system can be defined as progressive if after-tax income is more equally distributed than before-tax income.”
Using the tax code to re-distribute income more equally is a goal that many — but not all —Democratic members of Congress would support.
Obama has proposed to raise income taxes on upper-income people and to limit the amount that people with income of more than $250,000 a year can deduct from their taxes for charitable contributions.
Since the tax cuts which Congress enacted in 2001 and 2003 are set to expire at the end of 2010, Congress will face a momentous decision next year on tax rates.
Decline in excise taxes
For taxpayers of the JFK era, the tax system was much more targeted at spending than it is today. Excise taxes — the taxes you pay when you buy tires, gasoline, wine, beer, firearms, fishing rods, and other items — have dwindled from 13 percent of total revenues in 1960 to only about 2 percent today.
Why did this happen?
Ken Kies, former chief of staff for the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation and a tax lobbyist with the Federal Policy Group in Washington, said, “It was not until World War II that individual and corporate income taxes, combined, exceeded federal excise tax revenues. Then in the post-war period, excise taxes settled in at about 13 percent of total receipts, until the mid 1960s when President Lyndon Johnson and Congress cut them.”
And, Kies said, the high inflation of the late 1960s through early 1980s eroded the real dollar value of excise taxes.
Corporate tax less important than in 1960
Another noteworthy change in the mix of tax revenues today compared with 1960 is the decline in corporate tax revenue as a percentage of the total, from 23 percent to 13 percent.
Slemrod noted that in 2006, “corporate income taxes were back up to 15 percent of federal revenues, a level not seen since the late 1970s. The secular decline from 1959 to 2002 was apparently due to a decline in both the share of corporate profits in gross domestic product and a decline in the the effective tax rate.”
Kies partly agreed, noting that “the top corporate rate was a lot higher in the 1960s than it is now.”
But he added the most significant reason is that as a result of the 1986 tax law a lot of corporations converted into entities such as S corporations or partnerships. “As a result, a lot of business income that was previously taxed as C corporation income now shows up as individual income tax,” Kies said.
© 2009 msnbc.com Reprints
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29861648/page/2/
Treasury relies less on excise, corporate taxes, more on high-income people
By Tom Curry
April. 2, 2009
We have a new president, with a restless and far-reaching agenda — but how will the nation pay for that agenda?
For John F. Kennedy, elected in 1960, it was taxes and borrowing. For President Barack Obama, to whom JFK is often compared, the answer’s the same: taxes and borrowing.
But with the April 15 filing deadline looming, it’s worth noting that the tax system over which Obama presides isn’t the one workers knew two generations ago when Kennedy was entering the White House.
If you’re 70 today, you may have just retired, but do you recall that when you started working in 1960, making a beginner's wage, you paid only about $70 in payroll taxes? And that was for whole year, not for one week or one month.
The biggest tax change since 1960 is the growth in Social Security and Medicare taxes, also known as payroll taxes.
You may not think about them as you prepare your income tax returns, but for most taxpayers, payroll taxes are a bigger burden than income taxes. According to a report issued last week by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, for more than four out of five tax filers, employment taxes are a bigger burden than income taxes.
Growing importance of payroll taxes
And payroll taxes have become a larger source of revenue for the federal government than they were in 1960. Back then, they accounted for 16 cents of every dollar of federal tax revenues. Last year they accounted for about 35 cents of every revenue dollar.
Why? The Social Security tax rate today is more than twice as high as it was in 1960 and the amount of income subject to the tax is far bigger.
In 1960, only the first $4,800 of income was taxed — and at a rate of just three percent. This year the Social Security tax rate is more than twice as high, 6.2 percent, and the first $106,800 of earned income is taxed. (The amount subject to taxation goes up every year, using a formula based on increases in average wages.)
Another reason the payroll tax burden today is heavier than it was in 1960 is that 50 years ago there was no Medicare — and thus no Medicare tax (that didn’t arrive until 1966.)
Workers in 1960 didn’t have to pay the 1.45 percent Medicare tax which workers pay today. And that Medicare tax applies to all earned income, not just to the first $106,800, as the Social Security tax does.
One thing that has not changed appreciably since 1960: the biggest piece of the revenue pie comes from taxes on incomes. In 1960, 44 percent of all federal revenues came from income taxes, while in 2008, 46 percent came from the income tax.
Who bears the tax burden?
But what’s different is that the income tax burden is being carried to a greater extent today by upper-income people than it was 30 years ago, according to an analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office which tracks data going back to 1979.
In 1979, the top 10 percent of households, as measured by income, paid 40.6 percent of all federal taxes; other ninety percent paid 59.4 percent.
But by 2005, the top 10 percent accounted for nearly 55 percent of all federal tax revenues, while the rest of the population paid about 45 percent.
“In large part this is due to the large increase in the concentration of income, rather than a more progressive tax system,” said Joel Slemrod, the director of the Office of Tax Policy Research at the University of Michigan Business School.
Economists Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley find that the share of income going to the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution "was around 2.5 of total income in the 1970s and reached a peak above 9 percent of total income in 2000. In fact, most of the overall increase in the inequality of income has been driven by the very top of the income distribution...”
Measuring tax progressivity
Piketty and Saez say that “the federal tax system is clearly progressive,” that is, as a person’s income increases, the percentage of his income that he pays in taxes also increases.
One way tax experts use to measure the progressivity of a tax system is the effective tax rate, which is the total tax divided by total pre-tax income.
The Congressional Budget Office study found that a person in the middle of the income distribution (the middle fifth, if you divide the population by fifths according to income) paid an effective federal tax rate of 14.2 percent in 2005, while a person in the one percent of the population with the highest income had a effective tax rate of 31.2 percent.
People in the lowest fifth, or quintile, had an effective tax rate of 4.3 percent, partly because tax law changes in the past ten years removed many low-income people from the income tax rolls entirely. They pay only payroll taxes.
The lessening of the tax burden on the lowest quintile is a big change from 1979. That year, according to CBO, people in lowest income group (the bottom fifth of the income distribution) paid an effective federal tax rate of 8 percent.
But while Piketty and Saez say the tax system is “clearly progressive,” they seem to imply that it isn’t progressive enough, especially when it comes to the very top of the income pyramid.
Their concern is with using the tax code to bring about a more equal distribution of income. They say, “a tax system can be defined as progressive if after-tax income is more equally distributed than before-tax income.”
Using the tax code to re-distribute income more equally is a goal that many — but not all —Democratic members of Congress would support.
Obama has proposed to raise income taxes on upper-income people and to limit the amount that people with income of more than $250,000 a year can deduct from their taxes for charitable contributions.
Since the tax cuts which Congress enacted in 2001 and 2003 are set to expire at the end of 2010, Congress will face a momentous decision next year on tax rates.
Decline in excise taxes
For taxpayers of the JFK era, the tax system was much more targeted at spending than it is today. Excise taxes — the taxes you pay when you buy tires, gasoline, wine, beer, firearms, fishing rods, and other items — have dwindled from 13 percent of total revenues in 1960 to only about 2 percent today.
Why did this happen?
Ken Kies, former chief of staff for the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation and a tax lobbyist with the Federal Policy Group in Washington, said, “It was not until World War II that individual and corporate income taxes, combined, exceeded federal excise tax revenues. Then in the post-war period, excise taxes settled in at about 13 percent of total receipts, until the mid 1960s when President Lyndon Johnson and Congress cut them.”
And, Kies said, the high inflation of the late 1960s through early 1980s eroded the real dollar value of excise taxes.
Corporate tax less important than in 1960
Another noteworthy change in the mix of tax revenues today compared with 1960 is the decline in corporate tax revenue as a percentage of the total, from 23 percent to 13 percent.
Slemrod noted that in 2006, “corporate income taxes were back up to 15 percent of federal revenues, a level not seen since the late 1970s. The secular decline from 1959 to 2002 was apparently due to a decline in both the share of corporate profits in gross domestic product and a decline in the the effective tax rate.”
Kies partly agreed, noting that “the top corporate rate was a lot higher in the 1960s than it is now.”
But he added the most significant reason is that as a result of the 1986 tax law a lot of corporations converted into entities such as S corporations or partnerships. “As a result, a lot of business income that was previously taxed as C corporation income now shows up as individual income tax,” Kies said.
© 2009 msnbc.com Reprints
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29861648/page/2/
Sunday, March 29, 2009
The Real Che Guevara
http://www.therealcuba.com/MurderedbyChe.htm
The Real Che Guevara
An essay by Dr. Douglas Young, Professor of Political Science & History at Gainesville State College
February 10, 2009
Hollywood has dutifully churned out yet another cinematic agitprop paean to a leftist “martyr,” this time Ernesto Guevara. So let’s recall the real “Che” and try to discern why many supposedly democratic, civil libertarian liberals still swoon over this Stalinist mass-murderer.
The meticulous myth of Senor Guevara is of a handsome Argentine heroically helping Fidel Castro’s guerrillas liberate Cuba from Fulgencio Batista’s military dictatorship in 1959. Then he became a global revolutionary icon inspiring the downtrodden to rise up everywhere, even personally leading rebel warriors in the Congo before being executed doing the same in Bolivia in 1967. The (communist) party line says Che personifies the selfless humanitarian courageously fighting for “social justice.” He’s the Marxists’ martyred Christ figure replete with pictures of his half-naked corpse riddled with bullet holes. And the classic poster of an angry young Guevara has scarred countless college dorm rooms for over 40 years, putting a face on the eternally young rebel for angry adolescents everywhere.
The real Guevara was a reckless bourgeois adrenaline-junkie seeking a place in history as a liberator of the oppressed. But this fanatic’s vehicle of “liberation” was Stalinism, named for Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, murderer of well over 20 million of his own people. As one of Castro’s top lieutenants, Che helped steer Cuba’s revolutionary regime in a radically repressive direction. Soon after overthrowing Batista, Guevara choreographed the executions of hundreds of Batista officials without any fair trials. He thought nothing of summarily executing even fellow guerrillas suspected of disloyalty and shot one himself with no due process.
Che was a purist political fanatic who saw everything in stark black and white. Therefore he vociferously opposed freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, protest, or any other rights not completely consistent with his North Korean-style communism. How many rock music-loving teens sporting Guevara t-shirts today know their hero supported Cuba’s 1960s’ repression of the genre? How many homosexual fans know he had gays jailed?
Did the Obama volunteers in that Texas campaign headquarters with Che’s poster on the wall know that Guevara fervently opposed any free elections? How “progressive” is that?
How socially just was it that Che was enraged when the Russians blinked during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis and withdrew their nuclear missiles from the island, thus averting a nuclear war? Guevara was such a zealous ideologue that he relished the specter of millions of Cuban lives sacrificed on the altar of communism, declaring Cuba “a people ready to sacrifice itself to nuclear arms, that its ashes might serve as a basis for new societies.” Some humanitarian.
Che was a narcissist who boasted that “I have no house, wife, children, parents, or brothers; my friends are friends as long as they think like me, politically.” This is a role model for today’s “post-political” voters claiming we should get beyond partisanship?
Adding to the ridiculousness of the Che cult is that he was virtually a complete failure. As a medical doctor, he never even had a practice. When put in charge of the Cuban economy at the start of Castro’s government, his uncompromising communist diktats ran it completely into the ground, from which it never recovered. Humiliated, and also angry that Castro wasn’t fomenting enough revolution abroad, he then tried to lead such quixotic adventures in Argentina, the Congo, and Bolivia, failing miserably everywhere while sacrificing the lives of scores of naïve, idealistic young followers as deluded pawns in the service of his personality cult.
Another reason he fled Cuba in the mid-1960s was the complete mess he made of his private life. Though he preached sexual purity to his colleagues, he was a shameless adulterer who abandoned two wives and many children, some legitimate, others not. As a grandson put it, “he was never home.” The public Che who supposedly had such great love for humanity privately couldn’t stand most folks.
Guevara’s promiscuous communist adventurism was the pattern of a terminal adolescent running away from his problems to get caught up in some heroic crusade against his eternal bete noir, “Yankee imperialism.”
So why do so many well-heeled American libs still admire this thug? Are the young simply ignorant of his execrable record and drawn to the image of the dashing young rebel? Do older progressives feel guilt for their free market prosperity, and showing solidarity with Che absolves them? Do hippies-turned-yuppies get nostalgic for their youthful protests and rationalize that the symbolism of Che as a “social reformer” eclipses his actual horrific human rights record? And are some American Guevaraistas truly dangerous leftists who seek to emulate their icon and destroy our free, democratic, capitalist society? Ask that guy wearing the Che t-shirt.
(visit the link above for tons of proof and testimony that support this essay)
The Real Che Guevara
An essay by Dr. Douglas Young, Professor of Political Science & History at Gainesville State College
February 10, 2009
Hollywood has dutifully churned out yet another cinematic agitprop paean to a leftist “martyr,” this time Ernesto Guevara. So let’s recall the real “Che” and try to discern why many supposedly democratic, civil libertarian liberals still swoon over this Stalinist mass-murderer.
The meticulous myth of Senor Guevara is of a handsome Argentine heroically helping Fidel Castro’s guerrillas liberate Cuba from Fulgencio Batista’s military dictatorship in 1959. Then he became a global revolutionary icon inspiring the downtrodden to rise up everywhere, even personally leading rebel warriors in the Congo before being executed doing the same in Bolivia in 1967. The (communist) party line says Che personifies the selfless humanitarian courageously fighting for “social justice.” He’s the Marxists’ martyred Christ figure replete with pictures of his half-naked corpse riddled with bullet holes. And the classic poster of an angry young Guevara has scarred countless college dorm rooms for over 40 years, putting a face on the eternally young rebel for angry adolescents everywhere.
The real Guevara was a reckless bourgeois adrenaline-junkie seeking a place in history as a liberator of the oppressed. But this fanatic’s vehicle of “liberation” was Stalinism, named for Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, murderer of well over 20 million of his own people. As one of Castro’s top lieutenants, Che helped steer Cuba’s revolutionary regime in a radically repressive direction. Soon after overthrowing Batista, Guevara choreographed the executions of hundreds of Batista officials without any fair trials. He thought nothing of summarily executing even fellow guerrillas suspected of disloyalty and shot one himself with no due process.
Che was a purist political fanatic who saw everything in stark black and white. Therefore he vociferously opposed freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, protest, or any other rights not completely consistent with his North Korean-style communism. How many rock music-loving teens sporting Guevara t-shirts today know their hero supported Cuba’s 1960s’ repression of the genre? How many homosexual fans know he had gays jailed?
Did the Obama volunteers in that Texas campaign headquarters with Che’s poster on the wall know that Guevara fervently opposed any free elections? How “progressive” is that?
How socially just was it that Che was enraged when the Russians blinked during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis and withdrew their nuclear missiles from the island, thus averting a nuclear war? Guevara was such a zealous ideologue that he relished the specter of millions of Cuban lives sacrificed on the altar of communism, declaring Cuba “a people ready to sacrifice itself to nuclear arms, that its ashes might serve as a basis for new societies.” Some humanitarian.
Che was a narcissist who boasted that “I have no house, wife, children, parents, or brothers; my friends are friends as long as they think like me, politically.” This is a role model for today’s “post-political” voters claiming we should get beyond partisanship?
Adding to the ridiculousness of the Che cult is that he was virtually a complete failure. As a medical doctor, he never even had a practice. When put in charge of the Cuban economy at the start of Castro’s government, his uncompromising communist diktats ran it completely into the ground, from which it never recovered. Humiliated, and also angry that Castro wasn’t fomenting enough revolution abroad, he then tried to lead such quixotic adventures in Argentina, the Congo, and Bolivia, failing miserably everywhere while sacrificing the lives of scores of naïve, idealistic young followers as deluded pawns in the service of his personality cult.
Another reason he fled Cuba in the mid-1960s was the complete mess he made of his private life. Though he preached sexual purity to his colleagues, he was a shameless adulterer who abandoned two wives and many children, some legitimate, others not. As a grandson put it, “he was never home.” The public Che who supposedly had such great love for humanity privately couldn’t stand most folks.
Guevara’s promiscuous communist adventurism was the pattern of a terminal adolescent running away from his problems to get caught up in some heroic crusade against his eternal bete noir, “Yankee imperialism.”
So why do so many well-heeled American libs still admire this thug? Are the young simply ignorant of his execrable record and drawn to the image of the dashing young rebel? Do older progressives feel guilt for their free market prosperity, and showing solidarity with Che absolves them? Do hippies-turned-yuppies get nostalgic for their youthful protests and rationalize that the symbolism of Che as a “social reformer” eclipses his actual horrific human rights record? And are some American Guevaraistas truly dangerous leftists who seek to emulate their icon and destroy our free, democratic, capitalist society? Ask that guy wearing the Che t-shirt.
(visit the link above for tons of proof and testimony that support this essay)
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Black Columnist Claims Black's Hurt The Most By Liberal Democratic Agenda
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/03/17/the_republican_civil_war
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Regular listeners to the Rush Limbaugh program or subscribers to the Limbaugh newsletter know that both contain far more factual information and in-depth analysis than in the programs or writings of pundits with more of a ponderous tone or intellectual airs.
If it wasn't for articulate conservatives like Ann Coulter, both the Republican Party and the country would be in even worse shape than they are now, for there are extremely few articulate Republican politicians who can make the case for any principle.
No segment of the population has lost more by the agendas of the liberal constituencies of the Democratic Party than the black population.
The teachers' unions, environmental fanatics and the ACLU are just some of the groups to whose interests blacks have been sacrificed wholesale. Lousy education and high crime rates in the ghettos, and unaffordable housing elsewhere with building restrictions, are devastating prices to pay for liberalism.
Yet the Republicans have never articulated that argument, and their opportunism in trying to get black votes by becoming imitation Democrats has failed miserably for decades on end.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Obama Discourages Charitable Giving By Decreasing Tax Incentives
This sounds like a great idea to me. You know, since the government does such a great job using our tax dollars to take care of the needy. Why would we want to encourage the wealthy to give to charities to take care of the needy? How in the "H" do the democrats get away with claiming to be compassionate and care for the needy? This makes me SICK! The OPPOSITE of what we SHOULD be doing. But doesn't surprise me since Obama has proven over and over again that he believes in BIGGER GOVERNMENT and his "god" complex has him so delusional that he actually believes he can solve all these problems himself. What a joke! (both Obama AND this ridiculous tax plan)!
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D974O0HG0&show_article=1
Obama defends tax plan on charitable giving
Mar 24 08:52 PM US/Eastern
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama is defending a budget idea that would reduce the tax deduction that wealthier families can take when they make charitable donations.
Obama says the plan is "the right thing to do."
Speaking at a prime-time news conference, the president said the change in tax policy would be realistic and fairer to lower-earning families that make charitable gifts but get a smaller tax deduction. Some lawmakers don't like the idea. They say it could hurt donations to needy groups in a time of need.
Obama says the provision would affect only about 1 percent of the American people, and they would still get a tax deduction, just not as big as they used to get.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D974O0HG0&show_article=1
Obama defends tax plan on charitable giving
Mar 24 08:52 PM US/Eastern
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama is defending a budget idea that would reduce the tax deduction that wealthier families can take when they make charitable donations.
Obama says the plan is "the right thing to do."
Speaking at a prime-time news conference, the president said the change in tax policy would be realistic and fairer to lower-earning families that make charitable gifts but get a smaller tax deduction. Some lawmakers don't like the idea. They say it could hurt donations to needy groups in a time of need.
Obama says the provision would affect only about 1 percent of the American people, and they would still get a tax deduction, just not as big as they used to get.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Obama Received HUGE Bonuses From AIG, Fannie & Freddie
Obama Receives:
$125,000 from Fannie and Freddie
$101,332 from AIG
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2009m3d17-Obama-Received-a-101332-Bonus-from-AIG
Obama Received a $101,332 Bonus from AIG
March 17, 2009
Senator Barack Obama received a $101,332 bonus from American International Group in the form of political contributions according to Opensecrets.org. The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are - Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama.
The A.I.G. Financial Products affiliate of A.I.G. gave out $136,928, the most of any AIG affiliate, in the 2008 cycle. I would note that A.I.G.’s financial products division is the unit that wrote trillions of dollars’ worth of credit-default swaps and "misjudged" the risk.
The Washington Post reports a "mob effect" at A.I.G financial products division:
A tidal wave of public outrage over bonus payments swamped American International Group yesterday. Hired guards stood watch outside the suburban Connecticut offices of AIG Financial Products, the division whose exotic derivatives brought the insurance giant to the brink of collapse last year. Inside, death threats and angry letters flooded e-mail inboxes. Irate callers lit up the phone lines. Senior managers submitted their resignations. Some employees didn't show up at all.
With the anger and rage that is being exhibited against A.I.G., perhaps the bonuses Obama received from A.I.G. explain Obama's A.I.G crocodile tears.
Now that the Wall street Journal has revealed that A.I.G. paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, it's time to ask if recipients of A.I.G. "bonuses," including President Obama, will give what now ought to be taxpayer money back?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
Sept. 22, 2008 (Bloomberg)
"But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years."
"Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000."
"Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix."
"Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess."
$125,000 from Fannie and Freddie
$101,332 from AIG
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2009m3d17-Obama-Received-a-101332-Bonus-from-AIG
Obama Received a $101,332 Bonus from AIG
March 17, 2009
Senator Barack Obama received a $101,332 bonus from American International Group in the form of political contributions according to Opensecrets.org. The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are - Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama.
The A.I.G. Financial Products affiliate of A.I.G. gave out $136,928, the most of any AIG affiliate, in the 2008 cycle. I would note that A.I.G.’s financial products division is the unit that wrote trillions of dollars’ worth of credit-default swaps and "misjudged" the risk.
The Washington Post reports a "mob effect" at A.I.G financial products division:
A tidal wave of public outrage over bonus payments swamped American International Group yesterday. Hired guards stood watch outside the suburban Connecticut offices of AIG Financial Products, the division whose exotic derivatives brought the insurance giant to the brink of collapse last year. Inside, death threats and angry letters flooded e-mail inboxes. Irate callers lit up the phone lines. Senior managers submitted their resignations. Some employees didn't show up at all.
With the anger and rage that is being exhibited against A.I.G., perhaps the bonuses Obama received from A.I.G. explain Obama's A.I.G crocodile tears.
Now that the Wall street Journal has revealed that A.I.G. paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, it's time to ask if recipients of A.I.G. "bonuses," including President Obama, will give what now ought to be taxpayer money back?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
Sept. 22, 2008 (Bloomberg)
"But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years."
"Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000."
"Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix."
"Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess."
Friday, March 06, 2009
"Jane Roe" of Roe vs. Wade Speaks Out About Her Switch To Pro-Life
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/civil-religion/obama/2009/03/norma-mccorvey-kathleen-sebelius/
03.05.2009 11:45 am
Norma McCorvey & Kathleen Sebelius
By: Sherry Tyree
Special to the Post-Dispatch
Norma McCorvey, best known as “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade, wrote a book a few years ago, Won by Love. I was sent the book — autographed, too – when I made a donation to a pro-life cause.
Norma, who went from being the poster girl for abortion to becoming an adamant and outspoken pro-life speaker, tells the step-by-step tale of her journey in this well written, funny — yes, funny — poignant and thoroughly human chronicle.
As the story begins, Norma is working at an abortion clinic when she discovers to her horror that Operation Rescue has rented space next door…..
I’ve been thinking about Norma lately because of President Obama’s choice of Kathleen Sebelius, the Kansas Governor who wants the Health and Human Services post that Tom Daschle carelessly lost over neglected taxes.
Evidently President Obama is gambling that Catholic Governor Sebelius’ problems – her political support of the killing of innocent, unborn human life — are no big deal.
A New York Times article nicely outlines what Governor Sebelius’ predicament is:
Abortion may prove a lightning rod in her confirmation. Ms. Sebelius, a Catholic, has repeatedly vetoed abortion regulations on legal or policy grounds. “Personally, I believe abortion is wrong,” she wrote in one veto message before explaining that she did not think the bill would reduce late-term abortions.
Ms. Sebelius has defended her record by pointing to adoption initiatives and falling abortion rates in Kansas, but the archbishop of Kansas City last year said she should not receive communion until repudiating her support for abortion rights.
Anti-abortion leaders also criticize her for hosting a reception at the governor’s mansion in 2007 attended by George Tiller, a prominent Wichita abortion provider. At the time, Dr. Tiller was under investigation and now is about to go on trial for 19 misdemeanor charges of violating state restrictions on late-term abortions, according to news reports.
After her possible nomination became public, the Catholic League called her an “enemy of the unborn” and promised to fight confirmation. “We have the specter of another pro-abortion Catholic stiffing the Catholic Church,” Bill Donohue, the league president, said in a statement. “This is setting up a confrontation that pro-life Catholics will not walk away from.”
This morning we learned that Kansas City, Kansas Archbishop Joseph Naumann (originally from St. Louis) has written a column for his archdiocesan newspaper that will appear in tomorrow’s edition; to read it, click here.
In time we will learn whether or not the Senate will confirm Sebelius (probably yes) and perhaps whether or not she will present herself for Holy Communion. If she does not, she will not be the first high profile Catholic politician to refrain.
The larger question is this: does Governor Sebelius understand what she defends? Does she understand the scandal? Has she ever bothered to spend a good deal of time in an abortion clinic?
She would do well to read Norma McCorvey’s book. One Amazon reviewer of Won by Love has this to say:
…..Unquestionably the plot’s most fantastic twist occurs after Operation Rescue–the civil disobedience prolife group–moved in next door to the abortion clinic where Norma was working.
Despite opposite goals, Norma amazingly formed friendships with several Rescue staff members and one in particular who grew so trusting of the infamous foe that she actually let her eight year old daughter play under Jane Rose’s tutelage inside the clinic.
Were this book a work of fiction, most readers would slam it down in disgust at the farfetched contrivance in that chapter, but as the cliche goes, “truth is stranger…”
Obviously Norma’s story would be inchoate without a portion devoted to the horrors of the abortion trade, and from her days as an insider she possesses an armamentarium that far surpasses most right-to-life advocates.
She makes little effort to conceal her disdain for her clinic’s smarmy, avaricious abortionist–whom she never identifies beyond “Arnie,” and reveals an industry secret “that a disproportionate number of abortion doctors are actually from other countries–foreigners who perceive that our lax abortion laws create a tremendous moneymaking opportunity.”
Her contempt for this physician who was always barefoot in the office seems appropriate when she discusses how as his wife battled breast cancer, he moved a mistress into their home.
While he is the only abortionist profiled in the book, Norma’s implications are clear.
Referring to the reality of the work in an abortion clinic, Norma admits that on-the-job cocaine usage was commonplace among most workers (and honestly admits to frequent abuse of the drug herself) “drugs became a major tool to keep the peace; drugs got us through the day.”
Even abortion proponents should be outraged when she explains political pressure has resulted in a situation where “veterinary clinics have stricter regulations than abortion clinics…..”
Norma’s stories about abortion clinics and sordid abortionists are not unique. Tales about sleazy staff and practices abound.
What is unique is that this is Jane Roe talking.
Won by Love: a highly recommeded book for Kathleen Sebelius…and you.
03.05.2009 11:45 am
Norma McCorvey & Kathleen Sebelius
By: Sherry Tyree
Special to the Post-Dispatch
Norma McCorvey, best known as “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade, wrote a book a few years ago, Won by Love. I was sent the book — autographed, too – when I made a donation to a pro-life cause.
Norma, who went from being the poster girl for abortion to becoming an adamant and outspoken pro-life speaker, tells the step-by-step tale of her journey in this well written, funny — yes, funny — poignant and thoroughly human chronicle.
As the story begins, Norma is working at an abortion clinic when she discovers to her horror that Operation Rescue has rented space next door…..
I’ve been thinking about Norma lately because of President Obama’s choice of Kathleen Sebelius, the Kansas Governor who wants the Health and Human Services post that Tom Daschle carelessly lost over neglected taxes.
Evidently President Obama is gambling that Catholic Governor Sebelius’ problems – her political support of the killing of innocent, unborn human life — are no big deal.
A New York Times article nicely outlines what Governor Sebelius’ predicament is:
Abortion may prove a lightning rod in her confirmation. Ms. Sebelius, a Catholic, has repeatedly vetoed abortion regulations on legal or policy grounds. “Personally, I believe abortion is wrong,” she wrote in one veto message before explaining that she did not think the bill would reduce late-term abortions.
Ms. Sebelius has defended her record by pointing to adoption initiatives and falling abortion rates in Kansas, but the archbishop of Kansas City last year said she should not receive communion until repudiating her support for abortion rights.
Anti-abortion leaders also criticize her for hosting a reception at the governor’s mansion in 2007 attended by George Tiller, a prominent Wichita abortion provider. At the time, Dr. Tiller was under investigation and now is about to go on trial for 19 misdemeanor charges of violating state restrictions on late-term abortions, according to news reports.
After her possible nomination became public, the Catholic League called her an “enemy of the unborn” and promised to fight confirmation. “We have the specter of another pro-abortion Catholic stiffing the Catholic Church,” Bill Donohue, the league president, said in a statement. “This is setting up a confrontation that pro-life Catholics will not walk away from.”
This morning we learned that Kansas City, Kansas Archbishop Joseph Naumann (originally from St. Louis) has written a column for his archdiocesan newspaper that will appear in tomorrow’s edition; to read it, click here.
In time we will learn whether or not the Senate will confirm Sebelius (probably yes) and perhaps whether or not she will present herself for Holy Communion. If she does not, she will not be the first high profile Catholic politician to refrain.
The larger question is this: does Governor Sebelius understand what she defends? Does she understand the scandal? Has she ever bothered to spend a good deal of time in an abortion clinic?
She would do well to read Norma McCorvey’s book. One Amazon reviewer of Won by Love has this to say:
…..Unquestionably the plot’s most fantastic twist occurs after Operation Rescue–the civil disobedience prolife group–moved in next door to the abortion clinic where Norma was working.
Despite opposite goals, Norma amazingly formed friendships with several Rescue staff members and one in particular who grew so trusting of the infamous foe that she actually let her eight year old daughter play under Jane Rose’s tutelage inside the clinic.
Were this book a work of fiction, most readers would slam it down in disgust at the farfetched contrivance in that chapter, but as the cliche goes, “truth is stranger…”
Obviously Norma’s story would be inchoate without a portion devoted to the horrors of the abortion trade, and from her days as an insider she possesses an armamentarium that far surpasses most right-to-life advocates.
She makes little effort to conceal her disdain for her clinic’s smarmy, avaricious abortionist–whom she never identifies beyond “Arnie,” and reveals an industry secret “that a disproportionate number of abortion doctors are actually from other countries–foreigners who perceive that our lax abortion laws create a tremendous moneymaking opportunity.”
Her contempt for this physician who was always barefoot in the office seems appropriate when she discusses how as his wife battled breast cancer, he moved a mistress into their home.
While he is the only abortionist profiled in the book, Norma’s implications are clear.
Referring to the reality of the work in an abortion clinic, Norma admits that on-the-job cocaine usage was commonplace among most workers (and honestly admits to frequent abuse of the drug herself) “drugs became a major tool to keep the peace; drugs got us through the day.”
Even abortion proponents should be outraged when she explains political pressure has resulted in a situation where “veterinary clinics have stricter regulations than abortion clinics…..”
Norma’s stories about abortion clinics and sordid abortionists are not unique. Tales about sleazy staff and practices abound.
What is unique is that this is Jane Roe talking.
Won by Love: a highly recommeded book for Kathleen Sebelius…and you.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Former astronaut speaks out on global warming
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/2009_02_15_Former_astronaut_speaks_out_on_global_warming/srvc=home&position=recent
By Associated Press Sunday, February 15, 2009 http://www.bostonherald.com Around the Nation
SANTA FE, N.M. - Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming.
"I don’t think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.
Schmitt contends that scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels.
"They’ve seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that we’re in a human-caused global warming," Schmitt said.
Dan Williams, publisher with the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which is hosting the climate change conference, said he invited Schmitt after reading about his resignation from The Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space exploration.
Schmitt resigned after the group blamed global warming on human activity. In his resignation letter, the 74-year-old geologist argued that the "global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making."
Williams said Heartland is skeptical about the crisis that people are proclaiming in global warming.
"Not that the planet hasn’t warmed. We know it has or we’d all still be in the Ice Age," he said. "But it has not reached a crisis proportion and, even among us skeptics, there’s disagreement about how much man has been responsible for that warming."
Schmitt said historical documents indicate average temperatures have risen by 1 degree per century since around 1400 A.D., and the rise in carbon dioxide is because of the temperature rise.
Schmitt also said geological evidence indicates changes in sea level have been going on for thousands of years. He said smaller changes are related to changes in the elevation of land masses — for example, the Great Lakes are rising because the earth’s crust is rebounding from being depressed by glaciers.
Schmitt, who grew up in Silver City and now lives in Albuquerque, has a science degree from the California Institute of Technology. He also studied geology at the University of Oslo in Norway and took a doctorate in geology from Harvard University in 1964.
In 1972, he was one of the last men to walk on the moon as part of the Apollo 17 mission.
Schmitt said he’s heartened that the upcoming conference is made up of scientists who haven’t been manipulated by politics.
Of the global warming debate, he said: "It’s one of the few times you’ve seen a sizable portion of scientists who ought to be objective take a political position and it’s coloring their objectivity."
___
Information from: The Santa Fe New Mexican, http://www.sfnewmexican.com
By Associated Press Sunday, February 15, 2009 http://www.bostonherald.com Around the Nation
SANTA FE, N.M. - Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming.
"I don’t think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.
Schmitt contends that scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels.
"They’ve seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that we’re in a human-caused global warming," Schmitt said.
Dan Williams, publisher with the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which is hosting the climate change conference, said he invited Schmitt after reading about his resignation from The Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space exploration.
Schmitt resigned after the group blamed global warming on human activity. In his resignation letter, the 74-year-old geologist argued that the "global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making."
Williams said Heartland is skeptical about the crisis that people are proclaiming in global warming.
"Not that the planet hasn’t warmed. We know it has or we’d all still be in the Ice Age," he said. "But it has not reached a crisis proportion and, even among us skeptics, there’s disagreement about how much man has been responsible for that warming."
Schmitt said historical documents indicate average temperatures have risen by 1 degree per century since around 1400 A.D., and the rise in carbon dioxide is because of the temperature rise.
Schmitt also said geological evidence indicates changes in sea level have been going on for thousands of years. He said smaller changes are related to changes in the elevation of land masses — for example, the Great Lakes are rising because the earth’s crust is rebounding from being depressed by glaciers.
Schmitt, who grew up in Silver City and now lives in Albuquerque, has a science degree from the California Institute of Technology. He also studied geology at the University of Oslo in Norway and took a doctorate in geology from Harvard University in 1964.
In 1972, he was one of the last men to walk on the moon as part of the Apollo 17 mission.
Schmitt said he’s heartened that the upcoming conference is made up of scientists who haven’t been manipulated by politics.
Of the global warming debate, he said: "It’s one of the few times you’ve seen a sizable portion of scientists who ought to be objective take a political position and it’s coloring their objectivity."
___
Information from: The Santa Fe New Mexican, http://www.sfnewmexican.com
Monday, January 19, 2009
MLK's Dream Still Not Realized With Obama's Election
Obama's coronation is certainly not the realization of Martin Luther King's vision.
King's "I have a dream" speech envisioned a world in which a man would be judged not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character.
But Obama's election came about not in spite of his race, but because of it.
Geraldine Ferraro, was correct in saying that Obama was "given a pass" because he was black, and that no white candidate, man or woman, could ever have overcome the handicap of his unscripted verbal gaffs, shady associations, and astonishing lack of experience.
While I sincerely hope that he will govern from the center, and turn out to be greater than the sum of his parts, his election was the direct result not of color-blindness, but very color-conscious racism on the part of blacks, guilt-stricken liberal whites, and many who just wanted the novelty of a black man in the White House.
p3orion - http://www.mcclatchydc.com/338/story/59958.html
King's "I have a dream" speech envisioned a world in which a man would be judged not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character.
But Obama's election came about not in spite of his race, but because of it.
Geraldine Ferraro, was correct in saying that Obama was "given a pass" because he was black, and that no white candidate, man or woman, could ever have overcome the handicap of his unscripted verbal gaffs, shady associations, and astonishing lack of experience.
While I sincerely hope that he will govern from the center, and turn out to be greater than the sum of his parts, his election was the direct result not of color-blindness, but very color-conscious racism on the part of blacks, guilt-stricken liberal whites, and many who just wanted the novelty of a black man in the White House.
p3orion - http://www.mcclatchydc.com/338/story/59958.html
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Environment Minister Says Man-Made Climate Change Is A Con
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/environment-minister-sammy-wilson-i-still-think-manmade-climate-change-is-a-con-14123972.html
Wednesday, 31 December 2008
Spending billions on trying to reduce carbon emissions is one giant con that is depriving third world countries of vital funds to tackle famine, HIV and other diseases, Sammy Wilson said.
The DUP minister has been heavily criticised by environmentalists for claiming that ongoing climatic shifts are down to nature and not mankind.
But while acknowledging his views on global warming may not be popular, the East Antrim MP said he was not prepared to be bullied by eco fundamentalists.
“I’ll not be stopped saying what I believe needs to be said about climate change,” he said.
"Most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about it
“I think in 20 years’ time we will look back at this whole climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all. Because there is now a degree of hysteria about it, fairly unformed hysteria I’ve got to say as well.
“I mean I get it in the Assembly all the time and most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about climate change, not read one book about climate change, if you asked them to explain how they believe there’s a connection between CO2 emission and the effects which they claim there’s going to be, if you ask them to explain the thought process or the modelling that is required and the assumptions behind that and how tenuous all the connections are, they wouldn’t have a clue.
“They simply get letters about it from all these lobby groups, it’s popular and therefore they go along with the flow — and that would be ok if there were no implications for it, but the implications are immense.”
He said while people in the western world were facing spiralling fuel bills as a result of efforts to cut CO2, the implications in poorer countries were graver.
“What are the problems that face us either locally and internationally. Are those not the things we should be concentrating on?” he asked.
“HIV, lack of clean water, which kills millions of people in third world countries, lack of education.
“A fraction of the money we are currently spending on climate change could actually eradicate those three problems alone, a fraction of it.
“I think as a society we sometimes need to get some of these things in perspective and when I listen to some of the rubbish that is spoken by some of my colleagues in the Assembly it amuses me at times and other times it angers me.”
Despite his views on CO2, Mr Wilson said he does not intend to backtrack on commitments made by his predecessor at the Department of the Environment, Arlene Foster, to make the Stormont estate carbon neutral.
He said while he wasn’t worried about reducing CO2 output, he said the policy would help to cut fuels bills.
“I don’t couch those actions in terms of reducing Co2 emissions,” he said. “I don’t care about Co2 emissions to be quite truthful because I don’t think it’s all that important but what I do believe is, and perhaps this is where there can be some convergence, as far as using fuel more efficiently that is good for our economy; that makes us more competitive. If we can save in schools hundreds of thousands on fuel that’s more money being put for books or classroom assistants.
“So yes there are things we can do. If you want to express it terms of carbon neutral, I just express it terms of making the place more efficient, less wasteful and hopefully that will release money to do the proper things that we should be doing.”
Wednesday, 31 December 2008
Spending billions on trying to reduce carbon emissions is one giant con that is depriving third world countries of vital funds to tackle famine, HIV and other diseases, Sammy Wilson said.
The DUP minister has been heavily criticised by environmentalists for claiming that ongoing climatic shifts are down to nature and not mankind.
But while acknowledging his views on global warming may not be popular, the East Antrim MP said he was not prepared to be bullied by eco fundamentalists.
“I’ll not be stopped saying what I believe needs to be said about climate change,” he said.
"Most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about it
“I think in 20 years’ time we will look back at this whole climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all. Because there is now a degree of hysteria about it, fairly unformed hysteria I’ve got to say as well.
“I mean I get it in the Assembly all the time and most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about climate change, not read one book about climate change, if you asked them to explain how they believe there’s a connection between CO2 emission and the effects which they claim there’s going to be, if you ask them to explain the thought process or the modelling that is required and the assumptions behind that and how tenuous all the connections are, they wouldn’t have a clue.
“They simply get letters about it from all these lobby groups, it’s popular and therefore they go along with the flow — and that would be ok if there were no implications for it, but the implications are immense.”
He said while people in the western world were facing spiralling fuel bills as a result of efforts to cut CO2, the implications in poorer countries were graver.
“What are the problems that face us either locally and internationally. Are those not the things we should be concentrating on?” he asked.
“HIV, lack of clean water, which kills millions of people in third world countries, lack of education.
“A fraction of the money we are currently spending on climate change could actually eradicate those three problems alone, a fraction of it.
“I think as a society we sometimes need to get some of these things in perspective and when I listen to some of the rubbish that is spoken by some of my colleagues in the Assembly it amuses me at times and other times it angers me.”
Despite his views on CO2, Mr Wilson said he does not intend to backtrack on commitments made by his predecessor at the Department of the Environment, Arlene Foster, to make the Stormont estate carbon neutral.
He said while he wasn’t worried about reducing CO2 output, he said the policy would help to cut fuels bills.
“I don’t couch those actions in terms of reducing Co2 emissions,” he said. “I don’t care about Co2 emissions to be quite truthful because I don’t think it’s all that important but what I do believe is, and perhaps this is where there can be some convergence, as far as using fuel more efficiently that is good for our economy; that makes us more competitive. If we can save in schools hundreds of thousands on fuel that’s more money being put for books or classroom assistants.
“So yes there are things we can do. If you want to express it terms of carbon neutral, I just express it terms of making the place more efficient, less wasteful and hopefully that will release money to do the proper things that we should be doing.”
Saturday, December 13, 2008
History Lesson On Gun Control (STATS)
A Little Gun History Lesson
- In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
- China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Guatemala established gun control in 1964.. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
- Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
- Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
- Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
- In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
With Guns.............We Are 'Citizens'.
Without Them........We Are 'Subjects'..
During W.W. II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED !
Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attache to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.
It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U.S. & knew that almost all households had guns.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
2008 Election Map & Stats
Some unreported stats about the 2008 election:
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, MN, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:
- Number of States won by Parties: Democrats - 20; Republicans - 30
- Square miles of land won by Parties: Democrats - 580,000; Republicans - 2,427,000
- Population of the counties won by Parties: Democrats - 127 million; Republicans - 143 million
- Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by Parties: Democrats - 13.2; Republicans - 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
From the following, notice that only in the states of Alaska and Oklahoma where all counties were won by McCain/Palin.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, MN, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:
- Number of States won by Parties: Democrats - 20; Republicans - 30
- Square miles of land won by Parties: Democrats - 580,000; Republicans - 2,427,000
- Population of the counties won by Parties: Democrats - 127 million; Republicans - 143 million
- Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by Parties: Democrats - 13.2; Republicans - 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
From the following, notice that only in the states of Alaska and Oklahoma where all counties were won by McCain/Palin.
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
December 10, 2008
Posted by Marc Morano – 9:36 AM ET - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.GOV
UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'
POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]
Full Senate Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…
A hint of what the upcoming report contains:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #
In addition, the report will feature new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a heavy dose of inconvenient climate developments. (See Below: Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History')
The Senate Minority Report is an update of 2007’s blockbuster U.S. Senate Minority Report of over 400 dissenting scientists. See here: This new report will contain the names, quotes and analyses of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears in just 2008 alone. The chorus of scientific voices skeptical grow louder as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses and real world data challenge the UN and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." The original 2007 U.S. Senate report is available here: Full Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…
Meanwhile, while the UN climate conference is in session here in Poznan, the bad scientific news for promoters of man-made climate alarm just keeps rolling in. Below is a very small sampling of very inconvenient developments for Gore, the United Nations, and their promoters in the mainstream media. Peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and prominent scientists continue to speak out to refute climate fears. The data presented below is just from the past week.
#
Peer-reviewed study: Half of recent warming was solar! - December 10, 2008
Excerpt: In this dose of peer-reviewed skeptical climatological literature, we follow Climate Research News. The blog was intrigued by a new article in Geophysical Research Letters that was accepted on Friday, December 5th. Eichler, A., S. Olivier, K. Henderson, A. Laube, J. Beer, T. Papina, H. W. Gäggeler, and M. Schwikowski: Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing - Recall that the Siberian Altai Mountains are found at the intersection of Russia, China, Mongolia, and Kazakhstan. The authors looked at 750 years worth of the local ice core, especially the oxygen isotope. They claim to have found a very strong correlation between the concentration of this isotope (i.e. temperature) on one side and the known solar activity in the epoch 1250-1850. Their data seem to be precise enough to determine the lag, about 10-30 years. It takes some time for the climate to respond to the solar changes. It seems that they also have data to claim that the correlation gets less precise after 1850. They attribute the deviation to CO2 and by comparing the magnitude of the forcings, they conclude that "Our results are in agreement with studies based on NH temperature reconstructions [Scafetta et al., 2007] revealing that only up to approximately 50% of the observed global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun." Well, the word "only" is somewhat cute in comparison with the "mainstream" fashionable ideology. The IPCC said that they saw a 90% probability that "most" of the recent warming was man-made. The present paper would reduce this figure, 90%, to less than 50% because the Sun itself is responsible for 1/2 of the warming and not the whole 50% of the warming could have been caused by CO2 because there are other effects, too. Note that if 0.3 °C or 0.4 °C of warming in the 20th century was due to the increasing CO2 levels, the climate sensitivity is decisively smaller than 1 °C. At any rate, the expected 21st century warming due to CO2 would be another 0.3-0.4 °C, and this time, if the solar activity contributes with the opposite sign, these two effects could cancel. Even if you try to stretch these numbers a little bit - but not unrealistically - you have to become sure that the participants of the Poznan conference are lunatics.
Flashback: New scientific analysis shows Sun “could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average temperature” (LINK) & (LINK)
Dr. Bruce West, A U.S Army Chief Scientist, Says Sun, Not Man, Is Driving Climate Change – June 3, 2008 – (LINK)
21 spotless days and solar magnetic field still in a funk – Meteorologist Anthony Watts Excerpt:
We are now at 21 days with no sunspots, it will be interesting to see if we reach a spotless 30 day period and then perhaps a spotless month of December.
New Arctic ice analysis reveals ‘No clear evidence of a delay in the start of the later summer/early fall freeze up or the start of the late winter/early spring melt’ – Excerpt: Based on analysis by William Chapman, author of The Cryosphere Today website, graciously prepared an analysis of the dates of the minimum and maximum Arctic sea ice coverage since 1979.
Oscillation Rules as the Pacific Cools – December 9, 2008 Excerpt: A cool wedge of lower-than-normal sea-surface heights continues to dominate the tropical Pacific, ringed by a horseshoe of warmer waters. The continuation of this long-term cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation stacks the odds against a wetter-than-average winter/spring in the southwestern United States. The latest image of sea-surface height measurements from the U.S./French Jason-1 oceanography satellite shows the Pacific Ocean remains locked in a strong, cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a large, long-lived pattern of climate variability in the Pacific associated with a general cooling of Pacific waters. […] Sea-surface temperature satellite data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration mirror Jason sea-surface height measurements, clearly showing a cool Pacific Decadal Oscillation pattern, as seen at: http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/sst/sst.anom.gif . "This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation 'cool' trend can cause La Niña-like impacts around the Pacific basin," said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. […] This cool phase will likely persist this winter and, perhaps, beyond.
Report: Sea Level rise 'has stumbled since 2005' – Meteorologist Anthony Watts – December 5, 2008 Excerpt: We’ve been waiting for the UC web page to be updated with the most recent sea level data. It finally has been updated for 2008. It looks like the steady upward trend of sea level as measured by satellite has stumbled since 2005. The 60 day line in blue tells the story. From the University of Colorado web page: “Long-term mean sea level change is a variable of considerable interest in the studies of global climate change. The measurement of long-term changes in global mean sea level can provide an important corroboration of predictions by climate models of global warming. Long term sea level variations are primarily determined with two different methods.” - Yes, I would agree, it is indeed a variable of considerable interest. The question now is, how is it linked to global climate change (aka global warming) if CO2 continues to increase, and sea level does not?
Peer-Reviewed Study: Recent worldwide land warming' NOT 'a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land' - WorldClimateReport.com – December 3, 2008 ‘Rethinking Observed Warming?’ Key quote: “Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.”
Alert: 2008 will be coolest year of the decade!- December 5, 2008 Excerpt: This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07. [Note: For evidence of the panic apparently gripping the promoters of man-made climate fear, read the quotes in the article from the warming partisans absolutely assuring everyone that cool temperatures are “absolutely not" evidence that global warming is on the wane. Those same voices are usually absent when it comes to linking heat waves to global warming. ]
Flashback: Global Cooling? - 'Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof' - National Post – October 20, 2008
Report: NASA’s James Hansen "adjusts" a cooling trend into a warming trend - December 9, 2008 Excerpt: "[H]ere is what the data looks like before and after NASA GISS adjusts it. These are the USHCN “raw” and “homogenized” data plots from the GISTEMP website. The before and after is quite something to behold. ... What was down, is now up." "How not to measure temperature, part 79"
Geophysist: ‘It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history’ – ‘Alarmists are in denial and running for cover'- Washington Times
By Geophysicist Dr. David Deming, associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma who has published numerous peer-reviewed research articles. Excerpt: Environmental extremists and global warming alarmists are in denial and running for cover. Their rationale for continuing a lost cause is that weather events in the short term are not necessarily related to long-term climatic trends. But these are the same people who screamed at us each year that ordinary weather events such as high temperatures or hurricanes were undeniable evidence of imminent doom. Now that global warming is over, politicians are finally ready to enact dubious solutions to a non-existent problem. […] To the extent global warming was ever valid, it is now officially over. It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history, next to Aristotelean physics, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, phlogiston, and a plethora of other incorrect scientific theories, all of which had vocal and dogmatic supporters who cited incontrovertible evidence. Weather and climate change are natural processes beyond human control. To argue otherwise is to deny the factual evidence.
Climate Chancellor' No More – Der Spiegel Excerpt: Angela Merkel is facing withering criticism for remarks she made on Monday that seemed to back away from her earlier commitment to tackling climate change.
Alert: Under the Weather: Internal Report Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices - Fox News – December 4, 2008
Excerpt: As more than 10,000 delegates and observers gather in Poznan, Poland, to discuss the next phase in the battle against "climate change," a U.N. agency at the center of that hoopla badly needs to do some in-house weather-proofing. […] But the WMO, the $80 million U.N. front-line agency in the climate change struggle, and the source for much of the world's information in the global atmosphere and water supply, has serious management problems of its own, despite its rapidly expanding global ambitions. The international agency has been sharply criticized by a U.N. inspection unit in a confidential report obtained by FOX News, for, among other things, haphazard budget practices, deeply flawed organizational procedures, and no effective oversight by the 188 nations that formally make up its membership and dole out its funds. The inspection was carried out by a member of the United Nations Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), a small, independent branch of the U.N. that reports to the General Assembly and is mandated to improve the organization's efficiency and coordination through its inspection process. […] WMO did not respond to a series of questions from FOX News regarding its future programs, sent on the eve of the Poznan meeting.
16-year-old suggests sheep dung can help save planet Card business has really dung good - Daily Post North WalesExcerpt: The company makes its products at the Twll Golau Papermill in Aberllefenni Slate Quarry using sustainable fuel and materials. Every sheet of paper is made from recycled materials, including sheep dung, waste paper and discarded rags, using processes designed to affect the natural environment as little as possible. […]
Katie 16, from Tal-y-Bont, Conwy, was appointed to help spread the word on how Wales can reduce its carbon footprint and is urging other North Wales businesses to follow Creative Paper Wales’ example and adopt innovative approaches to the design and manufacture of products and the delivery of services.
Lord Christopher Monckton: 'Companies could be sued over climate change' Excerpt: The alarmist faction knows that, if it were to bring a case against a corporation whose executives were not minded merely to believe in the extremist presentation of "global warming" just because it is temporarily in fashion, they would lose. The case of Dimmock v. Secretaries of State for Education and for the Environment in the UK in 2007 was a very clear warning. The UK Government threw all of the resources of the taxpayer and of the Meteorological Office at the case, attempting to defend Al Gore's sci-fi comedy horror movie against the plaintiff's allegation that it was serially and seriously inaccurate. The Government failed and was humiliated. The judge, having heard both sides, said bluntly of Al Gore, and particularly of his unscientific allegation that sea level was about to rise by 20 feet, that "the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view". A few more judgments like that and the "global warming" fantasy would rapidly collapse. End of scare.
OOPS, We Forgot Siberia! (M4GW) - Weather Stations in Coldest parts No Longer Reporting
Excerpt: The thing that these skewed chart never take into account is that when the Soviet Union fell in 1990 the number of reporting weather stations went form a high of 15,000 in 1970 to 5,000 in 2000. This takes some of the coldest places on the planet out of the equation like Siberia. # #
December 10, 2008
Posted by Marc Morano – 9:36 AM ET - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.GOV
UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'
POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]
Full Senate Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…
A hint of what the upcoming report contains:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #
In addition, the report will feature new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a heavy dose of inconvenient climate developments. (See Below: Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History')
The Senate Minority Report is an update of 2007’s blockbuster U.S. Senate Minority Report of over 400 dissenting scientists. See here: This new report will contain the names, quotes and analyses of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears in just 2008 alone. The chorus of scientific voices skeptical grow louder as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses and real world data challenge the UN and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." The original 2007 U.S. Senate report is available here: Full Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…
Meanwhile, while the UN climate conference is in session here in Poznan, the bad scientific news for promoters of man-made climate alarm just keeps rolling in. Below is a very small sampling of very inconvenient developments for Gore, the United Nations, and their promoters in the mainstream media. Peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and prominent scientists continue to speak out to refute climate fears. The data presented below is just from the past week.
#
Peer-reviewed study: Half of recent warming was solar! - December 10, 2008
Excerpt: In this dose of peer-reviewed skeptical climatological literature, we follow Climate Research News. The blog was intrigued by a new article in Geophysical Research Letters that was accepted on Friday, December 5th. Eichler, A., S. Olivier, K. Henderson, A. Laube, J. Beer, T. Papina, H. W. Gäggeler, and M. Schwikowski: Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing - Recall that the Siberian Altai Mountains are found at the intersection of Russia, China, Mongolia, and Kazakhstan. The authors looked at 750 years worth of the local ice core, especially the oxygen isotope. They claim to have found a very strong correlation between the concentration of this isotope (i.e. temperature) on one side and the known solar activity in the epoch 1250-1850. Their data seem to be precise enough to determine the lag, about 10-30 years. It takes some time for the climate to respond to the solar changes. It seems that they also have data to claim that the correlation gets less precise after 1850. They attribute the deviation to CO2 and by comparing the magnitude of the forcings, they conclude that "Our results are in agreement with studies based on NH temperature reconstructions [Scafetta et al., 2007] revealing that only up to approximately 50% of the observed global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun." Well, the word "only" is somewhat cute in comparison with the "mainstream" fashionable ideology. The IPCC said that they saw a 90% probability that "most" of the recent warming was man-made. The present paper would reduce this figure, 90%, to less than 50% because the Sun itself is responsible for 1/2 of the warming and not the whole 50% of the warming could have been caused by CO2 because there are other effects, too. Note that if 0.3 °C or 0.4 °C of warming in the 20th century was due to the increasing CO2 levels, the climate sensitivity is decisively smaller than 1 °C. At any rate, the expected 21st century warming due to CO2 would be another 0.3-0.4 °C, and this time, if the solar activity contributes with the opposite sign, these two effects could cancel. Even if you try to stretch these numbers a little bit - but not unrealistically - you have to become sure that the participants of the Poznan conference are lunatics.
Flashback: New scientific analysis shows Sun “could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average temperature” (LINK) & (LINK)
Dr. Bruce West, A U.S Army Chief Scientist, Says Sun, Not Man, Is Driving Climate Change – June 3, 2008 – (LINK)
21 spotless days and solar magnetic field still in a funk – Meteorologist Anthony Watts Excerpt:
We are now at 21 days with no sunspots, it will be interesting to see if we reach a spotless 30 day period and then perhaps a spotless month of December.
New Arctic ice analysis reveals ‘No clear evidence of a delay in the start of the later summer/early fall freeze up or the start of the late winter/early spring melt’ – Excerpt: Based on analysis by William Chapman, author of The Cryosphere Today website, graciously prepared an analysis of the dates of the minimum and maximum Arctic sea ice coverage since 1979.
Oscillation Rules as the Pacific Cools – December 9, 2008 Excerpt: A cool wedge of lower-than-normal sea-surface heights continues to dominate the tropical Pacific, ringed by a horseshoe of warmer waters. The continuation of this long-term cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation stacks the odds against a wetter-than-average winter/spring in the southwestern United States. The latest image of sea-surface height measurements from the U.S./French Jason-1 oceanography satellite shows the Pacific Ocean remains locked in a strong, cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a large, long-lived pattern of climate variability in the Pacific associated with a general cooling of Pacific waters. […] Sea-surface temperature satellite data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration mirror Jason sea-surface height measurements, clearly showing a cool Pacific Decadal Oscillation pattern, as seen at: http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/sst/sst.anom.gif . "This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation 'cool' trend can cause La Niña-like impacts around the Pacific basin," said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. […] This cool phase will likely persist this winter and, perhaps, beyond.
Report: Sea Level rise 'has stumbled since 2005' – Meteorologist Anthony Watts – December 5, 2008 Excerpt: We’ve been waiting for the UC web page to be updated with the most recent sea level data. It finally has been updated for 2008. It looks like the steady upward trend of sea level as measured by satellite has stumbled since 2005. The 60 day line in blue tells the story. From the University of Colorado web page: “Long-term mean sea level change is a variable of considerable interest in the studies of global climate change. The measurement of long-term changes in global mean sea level can provide an important corroboration of predictions by climate models of global warming. Long term sea level variations are primarily determined with two different methods.” - Yes, I would agree, it is indeed a variable of considerable interest. The question now is, how is it linked to global climate change (aka global warming) if CO2 continues to increase, and sea level does not?
Peer-Reviewed Study: Recent worldwide land warming' NOT 'a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land' - WorldClimateReport.com – December 3, 2008 ‘Rethinking Observed Warming?’ Key quote: “Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.”
Alert: 2008 will be coolest year of the decade!- December 5, 2008 Excerpt: This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07. [Note: For evidence of the panic apparently gripping the promoters of man-made climate fear, read the quotes in the article from the warming partisans absolutely assuring everyone that cool temperatures are “absolutely not" evidence that global warming is on the wane. Those same voices are usually absent when it comes to linking heat waves to global warming. ]
Flashback: Global Cooling? - 'Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof' - National Post – October 20, 2008
Report: NASA’s James Hansen "adjusts" a cooling trend into a warming trend - December 9, 2008 Excerpt: "[H]ere is what the data looks like before and after NASA GISS adjusts it. These are the USHCN “raw” and “homogenized” data plots from the GISTEMP website. The before and after is quite something to behold. ... What was down, is now up." "How not to measure temperature, part 79"
Geophysist: ‘It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history’ – ‘Alarmists are in denial and running for cover'- Washington Times
By Geophysicist Dr. David Deming, associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma who has published numerous peer-reviewed research articles. Excerpt: Environmental extremists and global warming alarmists are in denial and running for cover. Their rationale for continuing a lost cause is that weather events in the short term are not necessarily related to long-term climatic trends. But these are the same people who screamed at us each year that ordinary weather events such as high temperatures or hurricanes were undeniable evidence of imminent doom. Now that global warming is over, politicians are finally ready to enact dubious solutions to a non-existent problem. […] To the extent global warming was ever valid, it is now officially over. It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history, next to Aristotelean physics, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, phlogiston, and a plethora of other incorrect scientific theories, all of which had vocal and dogmatic supporters who cited incontrovertible evidence. Weather and climate change are natural processes beyond human control. To argue otherwise is to deny the factual evidence.
Climate Chancellor' No More – Der Spiegel Excerpt: Angela Merkel is facing withering criticism for remarks she made on Monday that seemed to back away from her earlier commitment to tackling climate change.
Alert: Under the Weather: Internal Report Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices - Fox News – December 4, 2008
Excerpt: As more than 10,000 delegates and observers gather in Poznan, Poland, to discuss the next phase in the battle against "climate change," a U.N. agency at the center of that hoopla badly needs to do some in-house weather-proofing. […] But the WMO, the $80 million U.N. front-line agency in the climate change struggle, and the source for much of the world's information in the global atmosphere and water supply, has serious management problems of its own, despite its rapidly expanding global ambitions. The international agency has been sharply criticized by a U.N. inspection unit in a confidential report obtained by FOX News, for, among other things, haphazard budget practices, deeply flawed organizational procedures, and no effective oversight by the 188 nations that formally make up its membership and dole out its funds. The inspection was carried out by a member of the United Nations Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), a small, independent branch of the U.N. that reports to the General Assembly and is mandated to improve the organization's efficiency and coordination through its inspection process. […] WMO did not respond to a series of questions from FOX News regarding its future programs, sent on the eve of the Poznan meeting.
16-year-old suggests sheep dung can help save planet Card business has really dung good - Daily Post North WalesExcerpt: The company makes its products at the Twll Golau Papermill in Aberllefenni Slate Quarry using sustainable fuel and materials. Every sheet of paper is made from recycled materials, including sheep dung, waste paper and discarded rags, using processes designed to affect the natural environment as little as possible. […]
Katie 16, from Tal-y-Bont, Conwy, was appointed to help spread the word on how Wales can reduce its carbon footprint and is urging other North Wales businesses to follow Creative Paper Wales’ example and adopt innovative approaches to the design and manufacture of products and the delivery of services.
Lord Christopher Monckton: 'Companies could be sued over climate change' Excerpt: The alarmist faction knows that, if it were to bring a case against a corporation whose executives were not minded merely to believe in the extremist presentation of "global warming" just because it is temporarily in fashion, they would lose. The case of Dimmock v. Secretaries of State for Education and for the Environment in the UK in 2007 was a very clear warning. The UK Government threw all of the resources of the taxpayer and of the Meteorological Office at the case, attempting to defend Al Gore's sci-fi comedy horror movie against the plaintiff's allegation that it was serially and seriously inaccurate. The Government failed and was humiliated. The judge, having heard both sides, said bluntly of Al Gore, and particularly of his unscientific allegation that sea level was about to rise by 20 feet, that "the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view". A few more judgments like that and the "global warming" fantasy would rapidly collapse. End of scare.
OOPS, We Forgot Siberia! (M4GW) - Weather Stations in Coldest parts No Longer Reporting
Excerpt: The thing that these skewed chart never take into account is that when the Soviet Union fell in 1990 the number of reporting weather stations went form a high of 15,000 in 1970 to 5,000 in 2000. This takes some of the coldest places on the planet out of the equation like Siberia. # #
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)