Blog @ MoreWhat.com

This is not political rhetoric or some lobbyist’s scheme to support a strategy not in the public interest. It is what this country has been missing lately. Plain, everyday, good old-fashioned American common sense.

An excerpt from a WaPo report on health reform provides a reasonable introduction to what’s wrong and why a step by step approach to reform the wise choice.

Their efforts suggest a return to the frenzied pace of last year’s health-care debate, which prompted more than $200 million in advocacy ads and broke records for lobbying. Companies and trade groups last year hired more than 4,500 lobbyists to influence health reform — amounting to about eight lobbyists for each member of Congress, according to an analysis released last week by the Center for Public Integrity.

Reacting to President Obama’s recent statements that he will move ahead with legislation, health insurance companies have enlisted hundreds of lobbyists in a full-court press against the proposed overhaul, which would force dramatic cuts and increased regulation on the industry. At the same time, insurers are pushing back against a separate bill approved by the House last week that would remove the industry’s antitrust exemption.

Assuming the article’s facts are straight, ‘eight lobbyists for each member of Congress’ should tell you all you need to know. But add to that all the talk of ‘agendas’ and what some POLS are obviously trying to do and it becomes clear there is little in the way of public interest included in this legislative nightmare.

For instance, by itself in the spirit of ’step by step’ do you suppose anyone would object to a ban on deals between drug manufacturers to keep generics off the market? That’s right. The only ones who would object are the drug manufacturers and their lobbyists.

Would anyone object to allowing insurance companies to compete across statelines? Sure, state and local POLS who claim their legislation protects the public by allowing only approved players to participate. Do you suppose any of the same political shenanigans are involved at the state level?

These are some of the cost-cutting ideas that may come from either side of the aisle and appear to have merit without benefit of reading specific legislative language that may render them less than ideal. But the point is without taking unthinkable risk with national debt and deficits in addition to what already exists, doing things step by step would remove the all or nothing pitfalls from what is otherwise just more politcal theatre.

Our nation needs to address health issues. But the manner in which it is being done currently does not resemble anything close to the word reform. You might want to tell your elected representative we should take a break, eliminate the insanity and take a common sense step by step approach to solving health issues.

Sure, the step by step idea has been a GOP mantra for some time now. So if you are a liberal you naturally oppose it. But this post does not suggest all the GOP talk is correct. But there is no benefit to dismissing all the GOP or the Democrats say just to present an argument. The generic deals ban mentioned above may quite possibly be a Democrat’s idea. It seems reasonable. Step by step was proposed by the GOP. Another reasonable idea.

So let’s scrap these reform bills that are nothing more than political agendas. And do it right one piece at a time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Nothing like singleness of purpose to inspire others by demonstrating that hard work and determination lay the foundation for success. Who better to display those attributes than the King of Altruism, the man who invented the internet and is deeply devoted currently to saving our planet, Al Gore.

Last weekend with continued support from the NYT fish wrap former US Vice-President Al Gore presented an op-ed once again extolling the virtues of his own personal crusade. To express his concern for those who reject his money making venture this political doormat and newly minted snake oil salesman offered the following sentiment:

I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion.

But just as Mr Gore’s incompetence derailed his bid for President of the United States in 2000 it once again exposes his worldwide scam to profit from a crisis of his own making. Not an unusual strategy for a liberal. Attempt to create panic, fool the willing and laugh all the way to the bank in your corporate jet while criticizing others for destroying the planet.

Some more of Mr Gore’s ‘phrases’ will be supplied here demonstrating his folly. Of course libs will object to out of context use but then they are free to follow the link, search for the phrase and read the whole laughable thing for themselves. Why make everyone else suffer through Gore’s feeble pitch for his own wealth building scheme.

From Mr Gore:

-It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate… (read the rest for yourself)

-But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes.

-Because these and other effects of global warming are distributed globally, they are difficult to identify and interpret in any particular location.

In each of the examples above Mr Gore admits his case for AGW is flawed. He has drawn an absolute conclusion from vague, ambiguous or simply flawed data. And on that thin or non-existent evidence he expects the world to act on his recommendations. His position for personal gain from investments and partnerships points to the hypocrisy of his quest.

Hey Al, if you want to make a boatload of money on eco=business knock yourself out. But don’t expect the rest of us to buy what you’re selling, literally. The financial turmoil of the last few years and what may last for some time is nothing compared to the economic destruction your holy war would cause if we let it. Your money connection to your environmental crusade betrays your claim of genuine concern. As does your personal choices for producing the carbon mess you describe. You’re simply not believable. Nor are your cronies in the pseudo-science game. They’re in it for the money too.

Are there problems to solve with regard to ecology and the environment? Certainly there are. And good folks have been quietly working on them for a long time without the help from Al Gore’s personal search for the Holy Grail. Gore’s personal agenda will do more to harm those efforts than any other source. When you lose the public trust through selfish motivation support for otherwise noble endeavors declines.

Thanks for nothing, Al Gore.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

BTW, it is interesting that Gore chose the word ‘enterprise’ to describe science.

The Obamanation has once again enlisted the help of yet another person who worked on the 2008 presidential campaign of President Barack Obama. David Plouffe is viewed by the left as some sort of hero based on the props they give him. So what’s his story?

Based on his track record in campaigns found at Wiki, he’s basically battin’ 500. In the list below he’s three out of six without the last three wins. Who can tell if his work was really the prime mover in those contests. C’mon, if it were otherwise you might expect Plouffe to be Obama’s mega adviser not Axelrod. And the MSM being what it is the Messiah could do no wrong since his speech at a convention as a virtual unknown and his run in 2008.

(Last three wins working with or for Axelrod)

How tough would it be to get a Democrat elected in Massachusetts in 2006? How tough to get Harkin re-elected in 1990? Harkin in 1992 or Gephardt in 2000 would have been an impressive accomplishment. And how about the following item?

Plouffe offered a video challenge for the left to buy his book in order to beat one day sales of Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue. While the outcome may be unknown this much is certain as of this writing. At Amazon dot com Going Rogue has a sales rank of #59 while Plouffe’s book is at #646.

Apparently his challenge didn’t set the world on fire nor his book sales.

Plouffe’s wife is a principal at Dewey Square Group. In other words, she’s a lobbyist. And as for David Plouffe and David Axelrod they are thick as thieves. For more on them see this piece by Michelle Malkin…

Axelrod’s profits: Uh, who’s on the take from the drug lobby again?!?!

What did candidate Obama say about lobbyists in the 2008 US Presidential campaign? Ya, right. What now President Obama meant by ‘hope and change’ was that the change would be all the broken campaign promises and he hoped you wouldn’t notice.

So if they are enlisting the help of David Plouffe based on the DNC’s dismal prospects for the 2010 midterm elections and beyond (hint, hint, 2012) you should know what that means. Absolutely no hope and change but much, much more of the same.

For liberals and RINOs in 2010 it should be exit stage left.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

note: Much of the information provided here followed a path layed out by the fine folks at Wikipedia. Some info came from your basic internet search.

Transparency and accountability have been a focus in the long battle to defeat liberal control of healthcare in the United States. While the antiseptic qualities apply, described in the phrase, sunshine is the best disinfectant, public demand to review healthcare reform legislation and have input is key. President Obama’s release of his budget proposal for 2011 which begins in October requires the same scrutiny and public focus.

Are you kidding me? A three point eight trillion dollar budget ($3.8 trillion) is not what the doctor ordered. Just as the Democratic party and their agenda is on life support so is the US economy. Given that the vast majority of federal budgets are entitlements and discretionary spending this budget number is preposterous. Like the stark reality being experienced by the unemployed and under-employed the White House and Congress need a wake up call.

The plan includes big increases in personal and business taxes, modest spending cuts and increased outlays for education, defense and jobs initiatives.

First of all, tax increases are nonsense in this economy. Second, modest spending cuts are equally ignorant. As for education, sure, it is important. But the simple fact that everyone will have to suffer includes education. So your college plans are postponed for a year or two. Join the Peace Corps or something. And why do we think education can only be improved by spending money. That hasn’t improved student or teacher performance yet.

Cutting more entitlements would certainly help paying for any defense needs. And who the hell needs a jobs bill now that needs to be paid for over ten years? $80 to $100 billion over ten years for government make work jobs? That’s ridiculous.

And enough with the future timelines for reducing spending, deficits and the national debt. Do it now. Right now, in this budget in this year turn the corner and halt the damage being done by government malfeasance. As an ending note to this post Lamar Alexander put it best in describing current politics in Washington.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), appearing on the same program, praised Mr. Obama for talking about spending and tax cuts, but said his ideas were flawed. “I’ll give the president some credit,” he said. “He’s in the right church but the wrong pew.”

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

BTW, following links to the WSJ articles is worth the trip.  And so is the following link.

Debt deluge: Here comes the $1.6 trillion flood of red ink (Michelle Malkin) 

The president will try to add clarity in his speech, White House aides said. He will call for a freeze on federal discretionary spending, tax relief targeting middle-income Americans, regulating the financial-services industry and remaking the nation’s immigration laws.

He may also help provide a way to move forward with the signature issue of his first year, an overhaul of the health- care system, which represents about 17 percent of the economy.

The Presidents’ ‘freeze’ proposal is a mere $250 billion over ten years. Over that much time there is little chance POLS won’t find a way to end it and continue to borrow, increase deficits and national debt.

If the President succeeds in providing a middle-class tax cut and passing health related legislation the two will cancel each other out at best. And at worst the tax cut will be outpaced by increased health care taxes and costs that it won’t matter.

With other financial matters as well as immigration it is clear the Obamanation agenda will not change. In keeping with his campaign mode style and community organizing tactics this state of the union message will be more of the same. Proving once again there is no hope and there will be no change from the White House with the current US President.

President Barack Obama will propose extending through 2010 a temporary tax incentive that encourages businesses to accelerate purchases of equipment, an administration official said.

Certainly lowering taxes is a good thing. But tax incentives can be as problematic as any other tax situation. Dangle a carrot that rewards participants with tax breaks to do the government’s bidding. That’s not a good idea. Just reduce taxes for everyone. That’s a job creator and boost for the economy.

President Barack Obama will give $8 billion in economic stimulus money to 13 U.S. rail corridors tomorrow, mostly for high-speed passenger service, an administration official said.

Yup, don’t forget to put pork in your state of the union speech Mr President. High speed rail is nothing more than another earmark and pork barrel spending and a misuse of taxpayer funds. If high speed rail is such a good idea, how come it hasn’t happened yet in the private sector and won’t happen without misusing taxpayer money?

No hope, no change, nothing new, just more campaigning from a President whose failed agenda has been seen for what it is even by those who voted for him. And he has had plenty of help advancing his failed agenda from liberal POLS and RINOs in Congress.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Nothing like a football reference in politics on a weekend featuring NFL playoff games. But President Obama’s agenda and current bashing of the banking industry has little to do with playoffs and everything to do with games, political games.

Obama’s Lead Blocker on Wall Street

The two men first met in December 2006 in the New York office of billionaire investor George Soros. Mr. Wolf was a newcomer to elite Democratic donor circles. Then-Sen. Obama, still months from launching his bid for the White House, was desperate to raise campaign cash on Wall Street.

Here’s a link with a brief description of Robert Wolf from UBS, the company that returned the topic of Swiss bank accounts to a prominent status in the news.

Robert Wolf WG ‘84 and UBS AG for a quick review of the company history.

Imagine that, President Obama, George Soros, UBS, Robert Wolf and Swiss bank accounts. What could be wrong?

Other reports in the news support the notion the Obama administration and their agenda is coming apart and they know it.

Reporting from Washington - President Obama, allowing that he has run into a “buzz saw,” today carried his pitch for economic revival, healthcare and an agenda now threatened by political upheaval to battleground Ohio.

Defeats in numerous elections around the country including New Jersey, Virginia and most recently Massachusetts have POTUS and VPOTUS hot on the campaign trail when they should be leading the country out of a weak economy.

President Barack Obama is slated to appear in the Tampa Bay area on Thursday, one day after the State of the Union address and nearly one year after he pitched his economic stimulus plan in Florida.

Vice President Joe Biden, who visited Miami Saturday to show the administration’s commitment to Haiti’s recovery, is scheduled to join the president.

In a midterm election year the White House demonstrates more concern about losing seats than addressing the nation’s top issues. Campaign stops to repeat speeches on an agenda already rejected by the public and pathetic emotional appeals about Haiti in order to ‘never let a crisis go to waster’.

Some politicians simply never get it or refuse to admit they’re wrong.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Time to ratchet up contact to your elected reps. As the healthcare reform saga continues in the nation’s capital those in the majority confirm the loyal opposition is not the party of ‘no’ but the only ones trying to eliminate insane portions of current proposals in Congress.

Senate Republicans on Wednesday failed in their bids to strengthen provisions to prevent both taxpayer funding of abortions and illegal immigrants from obtaining access to government tax credits in the health care reform bill.

There you go. Taxpayer funding of abortions and opening the door wider for illegals to obtain more healthcare services meaning billions of public funds will extend benefits to those who are citizens of a country other than the United States. This improves healthcare for Americans how?

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, hoping to cull support for his reform proposal, told Democrats he’s open to reworking some of the new taxes in the bill, including the tax on high-valued insurance plans

Harry Reid and company have the task of reconciling two Senate committee bills before they reach the Senate floor next week. How is that going to happen based on the markup process that has been the longest in fifteen years? Rather than proposing legislation that would benefit Americans across the board there is a mix of takeaways and givebacks to accommodate the political agendas of various politicians. There is no way this so-called reform will improve healthcare in the United States. But it will raise taxes.

The only certain outcome of liberal healthcare reform is more taxes and less control for individuals over their healthcare decisions. Each version proposed in Congress has come with a slightly lower estimate on costs over the life of the legislation. Based on previous experience with government forecasts for government programs with the possible exception of the CBO indicate the actual costs will exceed any current estimates. The CBO can only predict based on information available at the time and since the various versions change on an almost daily basis that task is made nearly impossible. You can be sure it will cost more than anyone will tell you now.

More taxes, spending, deficits and national debt totals that will only benefit those not paying the bills as well as forcing taxpayers to cover the cost of many items that they oppose. There is simply no benefit to current healthcare reform proposals except for those making them. It’s a political power grab and a dangerous game to play given mounting debt and financial uncertainty. The money to pay for it does not come out of the sky but the pockets of Americans who simply cannot afford more expense during a recession. Nor can they afford to pass this debt on to their children and grandchildren. Especially when those future generations will likely gain nothing from the massive expense.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Democrat Sen. Tom Carper: Read the bill? Are you kidding me! (Michelle Malkin)

Upbeat Conservative News, Dems Don’t Understand Health Bill

Below are three reactions on Paul Kirk replacing the late Ted Kennedy in the US Senate until a January special election takes place. Following the three expected sentiments from the President, Senate Majority Leader and House Speaker is a more enlightening analysis of one, Paul Kirk.

Statement by The President on The Appointment of Paul Kirk as US Senator From Massachusetts

“I am pleased that Massachusetts will have its full representation in the United States Senate in the coming months, as important issues such as health care, financial reform and energy will be debated. Paul Kirk is a distinguished leader, whose long collaboration with Senator Kennedy makes him an excellent, interim choice to carry on his work until the voters make their choice in January.”

Reid Reaction To Interim Appointment Of Paul Kirk To Vacant Massachusetts Senate Seat

Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released the following statement upon the news that Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts has designated Paul Kirk as the interim successor to the late Senator Ted Kennedy:

“Ted Kennedy’s impact will endure for the life of this body and his values will continue to serve as a guiding principle for those of us who served with him. But as Senator Kennedy would say, ‘the work goes on,’ and today’s news of Paul Kirk’s appointment ensures that the commonwealth of Massachusetts will have an effective advocate as they await the results of the special election in January.

“As a former staffer and associate of Sen. Kennedy and member of the board of directors for the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation, Paul Kirk embodies the values of Sen. Kennedy. He also has a long-standing appreciation of the issues that matter to the great people of Massachusetts. I look forward to welcoming Mr. Kirk as he works with Sen. Kerry to represent Massachusetts in the Senate.

“Governor Patrick made a wise, thoughtful choice by naming Paul Kirk as an interim successor to Sen. Kennedy. I also appreciate the diligent work of the Massachusetts Senate and House leadership for understanding the importance of securing full representation for Massachusetts in the United States Senate.”

Pelosi Statement on Appointment of Paul Kirk to Vacant Massachusetts Senate Seat

Washington, D.C. — Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement after Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts announced that he has appointed Paul Kirk as the interim successor to the late Senator Ted Kennedy:

“Paul Kirk will be a voice of reason and passion in the United States Senate. His belief in public service and commitment to the causes of social justice, equality, and opportunity for every American make him an outstanding choice to carry on the torch of Senator Ted Kennedy.

“Paul Kirk will be an effective advocate for the people of Massachusetts, and I look forward to welcoming him to Congress and working with him to advance the cause of health care for all, energy independence, and economic growth in the coming months.”

And now for the enlightening analysis…..

Barack Obama has a narrative he likes for his health-care fight: Obama, on behalf of sick people and the whole economy, battles the well-funded special interests who profit from the status quo while his opponents spread lies.

But there’s another narrative being told by the facts most of the media ignore, and Paul Kirk could provide the awkward punctuation:

Obama is fighting to subsidize health insurers and drug companies, is cutting deals with drug lobbyists, and now his ally Deval Patrick has brought in a revolving-door drug-industry lobbyist to hit the game-winning RBI.

You really should read the rest of this piece. Click on the highlighted text above to go to the full story.

It is still a time where we need to voice public opposition to the corruption in our nation’s capital. More events like 912dc and the tea parties across the country are the order of the day. Paul Kirk is one more special interest lobbyist that the Messiah in Chief claimed would be a thing of the past. It is another vindication for Joe Wilson’s phrase ‘you lie’. Lies are all that appear to be coming out of Washington DC.

How can so-called healthcare reform legislation be anything but corrupt when corruption is all that is producing it?

At the very least, contact your elected reps and express your disatisfaction including advance notice of your vote against them in 2010.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If people rely on the wisdom of others when selecting a choice for critical decisions the need for due diligence is paramount. Leading up to the current status of the economy and all things financial media pundits and POLS are quick to point the finger at their favorite villains. Corrupt politicians, unscrupulous Wall Street insiders and entire industries are not spared the ridicule for their part in the present fiasco.

This blog has frequently layed a considerable amount of the blame on all concerned. That includes John Q. Public. The ordinary citizen by virtue of spontaneous consumption, knee-jerk reaction or other equally misguided bad habit including apathy is on common ground with every other antagonist in this theatre of the absurd. But now, after the fact, no opportunity to lay blame is left unturned by those labeled ‘experts’ in reports that abound in the media.

“They were assuming that homes would always increase in value,” he says. “Maybe somebody told them that; maybe somebody told them that a house was their best investment or any of the other fallacies.”

Collective faith in these fallacies, most experts agree, contributed to the so-called housing bubble. Eventually there were simply too many houses going up for sale on the market.

A fallacy you say, right, Mr Expert. Home prices would always increase was a fallacy? Easy to say in hindsight when the occasional correction comes around but where were you before the event? Here’s a link to readily available information that has been out there for a long time that may in fact provide a reasonable rebuttal for this so-called ‘expert’ opinion.

Median home values adjusted for inflation nearly quadrupled over the 60-year period since the first housing census in 1940. The median value of single-family homes in the United States rose from $30,600 in 1940 to $119,600 in 2000, after adjusting for inflation (see graph). Median home value increased in each decade of this 60-year period, rising fastest (43 percent) in the 1970s and slowest (8.2 percent) in the 1980s. Both home values adjusted and unadjusted for inflation are presented

You can follow the link above for the data which supports the notion that real estate, at least single-family homes, are a good investment and regularly rise in value. What caused the real estate meltdown was the subprime market spurred by mandate from the Community Reinvestment Act and community organizers like Barack Obama in his previous incarnation as well as that of Valerie Jarrett and others of their ilk who preyed on the weak and disadvantaged by working the power brokers in national, state and local politics to do their bidding. If you don’t believe it just enter a comment and the evidence will be forthcoming if you cannot find it for yourself.

The only truth in the report from this ‘expert’ lies in the following two statements.

While many analysts blame that trend on the nation’s lending institutions, Gerdano says there’s enough blame to go around. “Everyone has responsibility,” he says. “Both the borrowers and the lenders have contributed to the state we’re in today.”

Gerdano could have left the other ‘crap’ out of it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

‘Pandering to diversity’ by using cronyism and the old boy network of the Chicago political machine and at the same time claiming hope and change from the culture of corruption.

Those voting for Barack Obama in 2008 were either duped by the campaign promoted by the MSM or eager to share in the spoils of a fraud that is national in scope and international in the danger it represents.

Michelle Malkin is again knocking one outta the park.

See her interview with Matt Lauer. It IS spectacular.

Thanks to michellemalkin.com, Hot Air and CSPAN for the vids, etc.

Saturday open thread

Watch ABC’s This Week with Snuffalupagas as Malkin will be on the panel. Outstanding!!

And for those who would like to charge that Malkin is merely hawking her new book with all this. This is one example of a win/win. Good for her and good for everyone else.

This report can lift your spirits for the entire weekend or more. (Three cheers for MM)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A perfect example of why the global warming crowd is misguided. Forget the disputes about who is right or wrong on the idea of AGW or whatever it is called now. Seeking solutions to issues, real or imagined, through the government, aka politicians, is never a wise choice.

The title of the piece below from The Hill also muddies the water. It is not a matter of ‘consumers’ seeking changes to the laughable ‘climate change bill’ rather it is a battle between special interests. Lobbyists in the form of manufacturing or industrial interests are facing off with interests who claim to champion consumers.

The public at large or the real consumer, is largely unaware of the specifics in legislation of any kind not to mention the global warming variety. This is a classic case of be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

Not unlike the issue of healthcare reform, the climate change legislation is subject to the business as usual in Washington that one politician after another said was going to change. Not the least of which was the current President. The power brokers in Washington, lobbyists included, still have the last word on legislation. If you go to that trough seeking change you will be subjected to the pecking order which renders no proposal, worthy or otherwise, exempt from producing an outcome not of your choosing.

Consider groups like AARP only involve themselves in this type of action to increase or maintain their membership. Could it be that win or lose so-called consumer groups benefit from these matters by saying they fought for their members? And are the majority of their members even paying attention? Or are they simply delegating their responsibility to someone else as when or if they step up to the ballot box on election day?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Consumers seek climate bill changes
By Jim Snyder
Posted: 07/22/09 06:31 PM [ET]

Consumer groups, including the powerful seniors’ lobby AARP, say House climate change legislation does not do enough to protect households from skyrocketing electric bills or to prevent power companies from reaping windfall profits.

They want the Senate to add more explicit language that requires local utilities to pass along the revenues from the sale of the free emission allowances distributed by the federal government to residential consumers.

This is the first time this blog has witnessed anything useful from Chuck Todd, ordained some kind of chief political guru for PMS NBC. His willingness to spew the MSM point of view on politics only serves to confirm the public suspicion of ‘the news’. Since the content of what this blog finds useful from Chuckie merely requires rookie reporter skills this may indicate what this network’s chief Washington correspondent (according to Wiki) should be doing (very little).

Chuck points to a press release, a video and the text of the video. No need to deal with the press release since it is from a group in (dis)organized labor and they expect all Dems to be in their pockets. But any time MoveOn can be again exposed for the special interest group they are which has nothing to do with the public interest, it should be done.

Below of course is the video and text for the video.

Script follows:

“California voters sent Senator Dianne Feinstein to Washington to fight for us. That includes fighting to pass President Obama’s health care plan. A recent poll shows that 71% of California voters want a significant overhaul of the health care system now.

But Feinstein has been dragging her heels, saying health care may just be too “difficult.”

News flash Senator: We don’t expect you to lead just on the easy issues.

Senator Feinstein, please: Fight for California. Fight for President Obama’s health care reform now MoveOn.org Political Action is responsible for the content of this advertising.”

MoveOn cannot be that bright or they believe no one else is. To express Feinstein is to fight for ‘us’ and connect that to passing an incomplete proposal on healthcare is absolutely absurd. It is as ridiculous as Mr Obama suggesting if we all get behind this we can get it done. Again, there is nothing to get behind because even if it was medical nirvana it DOES NOT EXIST. The draft proposal is being tortured in Congress and is not ready for prime time. The CBO trashed it in its current state and much of it has not been scored because it DOES NOT EXIST.

Everyone who supports whatever they think is healthcare reform will not yet find it in Washington DC. Nothing is complete and therefore cannot be debated or passed and signed into law. There would need to be a complete bill with all the trimmings before a feast begins.

On Chuck Todd’s little announcement there were comments and some are reviewed below. It underscores the confusion or lack of information on which people are drawing conclusions. If this is any indication of public sentiment we should all pray this thing doesn’t get out of committee in order to cement the fact it won’t pass this year. To agree to it now would be equivalent to giving approval for a contract before it is written and letting the other side fill in the blanks. If you would agree to that you qualify as an idiot.

Just the first few comments for First Read by Chuck Todd at what Limbaugh calls PMS NBC points to public opinion that may explain some of the illogical results from recent polls on healthcare minus any influence from pollster error, etc.

While the first comment expresses support for special interest going after Sen Feinstein it is for the wrong reasons. A better one would have been her conflict of interest while on MILCON and possible fraud or other corruption involved in directing contracts to her husband. But that’s another story.

If Feinstein has objections over healthcare reform it is likely again to be for the wrong reasons. But her opposition is useful contrary to the commenter’s position since there is no specific plan and no inconvenient details like how it will be paid for in terms of public funding. So while the commenter believes Feinstein does not look out for average people, connecting support for the current vague proposal for healthcare reform with caring about people is naive at best.

The next two comments demonstrate some intelligence by objecting to MoveOn for various reasons. Number two suggests they are targeting Feinstein because she does not agree with them. Number two gets extra credit for being right twice. Number three indicates disdain with politicians will get them forced out of office at the ballot box. Ya, how many times has that worked for you and how long has Feinstein been in the Senate? Number three loses the initial credit for objecting to MoveOn for talking nonsense about elections. If all bad POLS were voted out of office we would only have good ones in office by now.

The unfortunate case here is that two out of three comments apparently support healthcare reform and are prepared to take whatever Congress and the White House propose. If they approach all life’s problems this way no wonder this nation as a group makes so many mistakes.

Finally, two more good reasons to oppose Obamacare or whatever it is. Labor unions and MoveOn are in favor of it. That should raise plenty of red flags on anyone’s scam-o-meter. Feel free to review other ‘Heathcare Scam’ posts on this blog for more information.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

A resolution dated April 22, 2009 sponsored by Rep Nita Lowey (D-NY) and at the time of this writing co-sponsored by no one was presented at The Hill dot com’s Congress Blog by its author. Dismissing those who do not share her view on global warming as ‘deniers’ Lowey injects plenty of insulting rhetoric but appears to expect anyone reading her post (which is crossposted at HuffPo) to take her claim on faith. Lowey claims the evidence for global warming caused by humans is ‘conclusive’. But of course no details or links are provided to make her case.

The First Step is Admitting You Have a Problem (Rep. Nita Lowey)
April 22nd, 2009

In the past month, the House Minority Leader called the idea that carbon dioxide - a greenhouse gas and known carcinogen - is dangerous “almost comical,” and members of his party suggested that the planet is actually cooling and “carbon-starved” and invited a global warming denier as a public witness to a Congressional hearing on the topic.

As anyone with experience with recovery knows, the first step in addressing a crisis is to admit that you have a problem. Unfortunately, these displays and others make it increasingly clear that, despite conclusive scientific evidence on the existence of global warming and the human role, some elected officials refuse to take Step 1.
As Congress begins the process of legislating to protect humans and ecosystems from the effects of global warming, I believe we need a “temperature check.”

It is interesting that Rep Nita Lowey makes the statements above with such conviction. Yet the resolution she authored and introduced in Congress April 22nd in stark contrast has no such confidence. She offers seven ‘whereas’ statements which list her arguments supporting that human activity causes global warming. But twice she is only mildly hinting that such is the case with two statements. ‘Recognizing that the climate system of the Earth is warming and that most of the increase in global average temperatures is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas emissions.’ And ‘Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives– (1) recognizes that the climate system of the Earth is warming and that most of the increase in global average temperatures is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas emissions; and (2) recognizes legislation is needed to mitigate risks humans and ecosystems face from a warming climate system.’

Seven details in an effort to support her claim that we are causing global warming followed by two statements in her conclusion that this is ‘very likely’ rather than something reflecting she is convinced by her own argument. Maybe she missed arguments to the contrary or in her zeal to support her political party dismissed everyone that disagrees as a ‘denier’. There was an article in the Politico which offered the following last November.

Scientists urge caution on global warming
By: Erika Lovley
November 25, 2008 04:48 AM EST

Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.

There are scientists on both sides of this issue. Another excerpt from the same article points out one example.

Armed with statistics from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Data Center, D’Aleo reported in the 2009 Old Farmer’s Almanac that the U.S. annual mean temperature has fluctuated for decades and has only risen 0.21 degrees since 1930 — which he says is caused by fluctuating solar activity levels and ocean temperatures, not carbon emissions.

The article also stated ‘most’ scientific bodies support the notion of global warming and our involvement in it. Organizations may not reflect the opinion of everyone connected to their organizations. But over 30,000 scientists who signed the Petition Project since 1998 make an even stronger case than global warming or cooling. They have objected to the idea that the debate is over and the science is done. That presents an intelligent and reasonable conclusion. Science has always been about continuing the pursuit and regularly challenging theories and discoveries. Galileo risked his life for that pursuit as did others. Some people take science seriously. Here’s a snapshot of what the project and the signers are ‘about’.

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

In contrast to that and published in 1992 the Union of Concerned Scientists which boasts 250,000 members including scientists and ordinary citizens offered their National Call to Action on Global Warming which proposes essentially taking all sorts of steps to eliminate human causes of global warming. For an organization that gives at least some impression of being science related they have a troubling list of organizations supporting their position. That list may have a political agenda or at least be characterized as special interest. Or another way of putting it is lobbyists. Decide for yourself, here’s the list.

Organizations Endorsing the National Call to Action on Global Warming:

1Sky * ACORN * Alliance for Climate Protection * Audubon * Catholic Healthcare West * Center for International Environmental Law * Ceres * Clean Water Action * Climate Law and Policy Project * Climate Protection Campaign * Climate Solutions * Defenders of Wildlife * Democracia USA * Earthjustice * Eco-Equity * Ecology Center * Energize America * Energy Action Coalition * Environment America * Environment and Energy Study Institute * Environment Northeast * Environmental Law and Policy Center * Green for All * Greenpeace * Health Professionals for Clean Air * Hip Hop Caucus * ICLEI USA * Insitute for Agriculture and Trade Policy * Interfaith Power and Light * International Forum on Globalization * Kyoto USA * League of Conservation Voters * League of Women Voters * League of Young Voters * Massachusetts Climate Action Network * National Hispanic Environmental Council * National Teach-In on Global Warming Solutions * National Wildlife Federation * Oceana * Oxfam * Physicians for Social Responsibility * Progressive Future * Public Citizen * Religious Witness for the Earth * Rock the Vote * SEED Coalition * Sierra Club * Southern Alliance for Clean Energy * Teleosis Institute * The Humane Society of the United States * The Student Public Interest Research Groups * The Wilderness Society * Union of Concerned Scientists

This post does not suggest global warming does or does not exist. It does not even suggest whether humans are or are not responsible in whole or in part. But this is what it does suggest. Those who dismiss opposing viewpoints are ignoring scientific method. Just because you may want the argument resolved or that it would be expedient does not gurantee the science will support it or be available now.

As stated earlier in this post, Lowey is not even convinced it is real. That is why pursuing legislation based on the SWAG method is ridiculous. Check your politics and special interest agendas at the door. Causing panic to rush to legislation is a very good sign the proposal is flawed. That is what the science should help you avoid. Listen to the more than 30,000 scientists telling you the answer is not here yet.

Stanford Matthews
Morewhat.com

With Congress not in session there has been less reason or urgency to monitor House and Senate websites. A casual pass by several of the usual suspects is responsible for the following small tidbit. Most of the quotes and the post itself are from March of this year. But it is still relevant. Read it with the caveat that members of political parties do not promote bipartisanship from a position of strength. The news media and blogs are filled with stories about the GOP fall from grace in abandoning longstanding conservative principles even if the effort was never unanimous. And to a lesser degree the question is always present on how long it will take the Democratic party majority to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

To repeat , no members of political parties promote bipartisanship from a position of strength. This means the White House and Congress being filled almost exclusively by members of both parties are aware of their own peril. Polls show it. Public outrage shows it. And even some of the politicians themselves show it. That is one reason this post with an item from the Republican Senate leadership website is presented.

Anyone who is concerned about the future of our country has cause to worry.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Budget Chairman And 14 Senate Dems Decry Fast-Tracking Energy Tax, Health Care Reforms But Take No Responsibility For Removing The Option

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND) ON FAST TRACKING SWEEPING REFORMS: “I would just say I am going to argue strenuously against it in conference committee. The Senator asked me what will be the result. I don’t know. Am I going to be able to prevail in the conference committee on this matter? I don’t know.” (Sen. Conrad, Congressional Record, S.3957, 3/30/09)

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND): “I have said publicly and privately what I believe. I don’t believe reconciliation was ever intended for the purpose of writing this kind of substantive reform legislation such as health care reform, such as climate change.” (Sen. Conrad, Congressional Record, S.3957, 3/30/09)

SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D-WV): “I was one of the authors of the legislation that created the budget ‘reconciliation’ process in 1974, and I am certain that putting health-care reform and climate change legislation on a freight train through Congress is an outrage that must be resisted.” (“The End Of Bipartisanship For Obama’s Big Initiatives?” The Washington Post, 3/22/09)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “‘Reconciliation tends to be partisan,’ Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus said. ‘It’s not a good idea.’” (“Dems Resistant To Using Reconciliation For Climate Bill,” Congress Daily AM, 3/11/09)

SEN. BEN NELSON (D-NE): “That’s a deal-breaker.” (“Obama Budget Set for Debate Next Week in U.S. House and Senate,” Bloomberg, 03/27/09)

SEN. BYRON DORGAN (D-ND): “It unnecessarily short circuits Congress’ ability to more fully debate this complex and multi-faceted public policy issue.” (Letter To Sens. Conrad & Gregg, 3/13/09)

SEN. TOM CARPER (D-DE): “And Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) warned Monday that Democrats could do ‘serious damage to our bipartisan effort’ if they start talking ‘in earnest about putting [health care reform] in reconciliation.’” (“GOP Warns About Budget Hardball,” Politico, 3/24/09)

SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR): “[W]e want to do it by bringing Democrats and Republicans together and making the issue of reconciliation on the issue of health care reform irrelevant.” (Sen. Wyden, Congressional Record, S.3972, 3/30/09)

SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-AK): Q: “Will you commit to supporting efforts to bring up important legislation under budget reconciliation rules even if other moderate Democrats try to stop that?” SEN. BEGICH:
“I’ll tell you, Rachel, the answer is probably no.” (MSNBC, 3/19/09)

SEN. MARK PRYOR (D-AR): “I really do hope we follow the regular order around here.” (“Democrats Mull End-Run For Obama,” The Washington Times, 3/17/09)

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV): “If you go for budget reconciliation, you’re basically going for a bill that goes nowhere.” (“Bipartisan Senate Group Makes Health-Care Progress,” TIME, 3/13/09)

RECONCILIATION LETTER SIGNED BY:

SENS. ROBERT BYRD (D-WV), EVAN BAYH (D-IN), ROBERT CASEY (D-PA), MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA), CARL LEVIN (D-MI), BLANCHE LINCOLN (D-AR), BEN NELSON (D-NE), & MARK PRYOR (D-AR)

“Using this procedure would circumvent normal Senate practice and would be inconsistent with the Administration’s stated goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness.”
(Letter To Sens. Conrad & Gregg, 3/12/09)

###
SENATE REPUBLICAN COMMUNICATIONS CENTER

April 2, 2009 – 3:26 p.m.
Sebelius Confirmation Delayed by Bunning Objection to Timing
By John Reichard, CQ Staff

Senate confirmation of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to head the Department of Health and Human Services probably won’t take place until after the coming two-week recess because at least one senator has objected to an expedited procedure to move the nomination.

Finance Committee member Jim Bunning , R-Ky., confirmed Thursday night that he had objected to allowing the committee move up the finance panel’s vote.

“The rules that the Democrats made say that there’s a layover of two days,” Bunning said. “That’s what I objected to.”

Bunning said he also planned to oppose Sebelius’ nomination when the panel does hold a vote after the recess.

“I am going to vote ‘no’ on the nomination, but I wasn’t going to allow them to break their own rules,” he said.

Earlier Thursday, Committee Chairman Max Baucus , D-Mont. had predicted the Senate would confirm the nominee later that day.

The excerpt and link above provide an opportunity for members of the voting public to express their concern over confirming Kathleen Sebelius as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The GOP appears to have largely ignored this troubling nomination. It may be a case of choosing your battles when in the minority. But conceding this nomination to the liberals may prove to be a mistake from which dire circumstances will be exacerbated.

Sebelius is Obama’s ‘point person’ for so-called health care reform. While she may have some positive attributes being another nominee with tax problems and a strong proponent of abortion do not support her pursuit of Secretary of HHS. The person placed in that position will have substantial power over how you receive health care and what is or is not available.

Over the past few decades Americans have strongly opposed socialized medicine. Where are those voices now? Changing the name to universal health care is a political ploy. It does not change the fact that choice will be removed as well as other criteria Americans have come ot expect from their healthcare.

Even a documentary from the less than conservative Frontline on PBS left viewers with the impression the road to government run medical services is not cost effective nor in the recipient’s best interest. Again, you should inform your elected representative you do not want socialized medicine nor Kathleen Sebelius as the next Secretary of HHS. For she will be the one to take the heat on forcing Americans down a road they will regret. And President Obama will deflect criticism toward him as Sebelius becomes the willing scapegoat. But that won’t matter to most Americans because after she is gone and Obmaa too, you will still be stuck with whatever they succeed in taking from you and your healthcare.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com