Wall Street Journal Editorial about Health Care non-debate

Found this nugget from the Wall Street Journal about how the Senate rushed this bill through without regard to transparency or good legislation.

The Senate Postmortem, Dec. 26, 2009.

Senate Legalizes Bribery

Earlier this week, a bill introduced by Jim DeMint went down in flames in an almost straight party vote. The bill basically sought a yes/no vote on allowing votes for bills to be, to put it bluntly, purchased by offering deals in the same or future legislation. The result of the bill was a 53-46 defeat, with seven Democrats joining Republicans in voting for the legislation.


While it wasn't a headline grabber, those that have been paying attention to the health care debate certainly took note of this small piece of legislation. Opponents of the health care takeover have been up in arms recently as Ben Nelson's (D-NE) and Mary Landrieu's (D-LA) votes for the Senate health care bill were practically purchased by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as he offered both of them sweetheart Medicaid funding deals that only their states qualify for.

While I'm not surprised that a vote like this came down to an almost straight party vote, I do won't to recognize the 7 Democratic Senators that took a stand (even though they may have voted for the health care bill).

Bayh (D-IN)
Feingold (D-WI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Merkley (D-OR)
Nelson (D-NE)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)

And now for the punchline. Ben Nelson voted for it. What a jerk. Here is the actual language from the bill that gives Nebraska its federal Medicaid dollars:

"'(3) Notwithstanding subsection (b) and paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, the Federal medical assistance percentage otherwise determined under subsection (b) with respect to all or any portion of a fiscal year that begins on or after January 1, 2017, for the State of Nebraska, with respect to amounts expended for newly eligible individuals described in subclause (VIII) of section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i), shall be determined as provided for under subsection (y)(1) (A) (notwithstanding the period provided for in such paragraph)"

My children say you're welcome.

FTC Considers Subsidies to Help Failing Newspapers

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, the Federal Trade Commision is deciding wether or not to assist failing newspapers, after many major dailies have gone bankrupt or are close to it. With free information and news available through the internet, many papers are struggling with old business models and new ways of making revenue.

There are a few issues with this. One argument the media executives have, especially those from newspapers, is that internet sites can search their site for free and return the article to the user, or print articles on other sites. I take the side of the execs on this, but only a little. Lets look at it this way. Anything that is printed by Townsville's newspaper's staff in that newspaper is property of Townsville's newspaper, and no one else. If Cityville's newspaper wants to borrow, or re-print an article, then they pay Townsville's newspaper for the article. And so on. The problem some execs - OK, Rupert Murdoch - have is that Google, for instance, can search a news site, and reprint a blurb, or an entire article, with out the user ever visiting the actual newspaper site. The other side of the coin is that newspapers need to either update their business model, create new revenue streams (The FTC is considering letting media companies own TV stations and newspapers in the same market), or just fail and go out of business.

Another issue with the government sponsored subsidies of media organizations is the (further) blurring of the line of the separation of government and media. Earlier this year, Democratic Senator Benjamin Cardin of Maryland introduced a bill that would let newspapers operate as non-profits. So, if that were to come to fruition, then newspapers would be indebted to government for practically being propped up. If government intervention is the sole reason newspapers would be able to stay afloat, how could they be government watchdogs and actually do investigative journalism? Media organizations that received government assistance would practically become state run news agencies.

A third issue is the further bailing out of failing companies. I guess, by now, the model for failed government intervention is GM. They get billions of dollars, and have nothing to show for it in nine months except (continually) falling profits and hundreds of dealerships boarded up. As hard as it would be, the government would be better served by letting business find new ways to do business or go out of business. The same business models that worked 50-100 years ago don't always work now.

Senator Barbara Boxer Ignores Reality

During the recent Climate Gate mess, Barbara Boxer more intent on calling for an investigation of the leaked/hacked emails than she is about finding the truth behind global warming. I suppose if global warming were de-bunked, then it would totally derail her liberal agenda. With a scandal right in front of her where scientists FOR global warming are admitting that they cooked the data in favor of, she is still head strong for anti-global warming legislation.

I heard this clip on the radio a few days ago, then finally found the quote in the LA Times.

"People write ridiculous e-mails when they're in the middle of a fight," Boxer said. "To me, what's important is, e-mails aside, is there global warming? Is it being affected by human activity? And there's nothing out there that says otherwise."

Mrs Boxer, I present several arguments - maybe even FACTS - to refute Global Warming.

From MTVY News 4:

Temperatures are falling, not rising

As Christopher Booker says in his review of 2008, temperatures have been dropping in a wholly unpredicted way over the past year. Last winter, the northern hemisphere saw its greatest snow cover since 1966, which in the northern US states and Canada was dubbed the “winter from hell”. This winter looks set to be even worse.

The earth was hotter 1,000 years ago

Evidence from all over the world indicates that the earth was hotter 1,000 years ago than it is today. Research shows that temperatures were higher in what is known as the Mediaeval Warming period than they were in the 1990s.

The earth’s surface temperature is not at record levels

According to Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis of surface air temperature measurements, the meteorological December 2007 to November 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. Their data has also shown that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s but the 1930s.

Ice is not disappearing

Arctic website Crysophere Today reported that Arctic ice volume was 500,000 sq km greater than this time last year. Additionally, Antarctic sea-ice this year reached its highest level since satellite records began in 1979. Polar bear numbers are also at record levels.

Himalayan glaciers

A report by the UN Environment Program this year claimed that the cause of melting glaciers in the Himalayas was not global warming but the local warming effect of a vast “atmospheric brown cloud” over that region, made up of soot particles from Asia’s dramatically increased burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

Temperatures are still declining

Nasa satellite readings on global temperatures from the University of Alabama show that August was the fourth month this year when temperatures fell below their 30-year average, ie since satellite records began. November 2008 in the USA was only the 39th warmest since records began 113 years ago.

From CO2Science.org, here is a study by Japanese scientists studying temperature fluctuations across the region for a few hundred years.

What was learned
Significant decadal to centennial-scale variability was noted throughout the record, with temperatures fluctuating by about 5°C across the series. Most notable among the fluctuations were multi-century warm and cold epochs. Between AD 700-1200, for example, there was about a 1°C rise in average temperature (pre-1850 average), which the authors state "appears to be related to the 'Medieval Warm Period'." In contrast, temperatures were about 2°C below the long-term pre-1850 average during the multi-century Little Ice Age that occurred between AD 1580 and 1700. Kitagawa and Matsumoto also report finding significant temperature periodicities of 187, 89, 70, 55 and 44 years. Noting that the 187-year cycle closely corresponds to the well-known Suess cycle of solar activity and that the 89-year cycle compares well with the Gleissberg solar cycle, they conclude that their findings provide further support for a sun-climate relationship.

What it means
The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were global phenomena. What is more, they indicate there is nothing unprecedented about Current Warm Period temperatures in this region, which according to the data presented in the authors' Figure 3, remain about a degree Celsius lower than the peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period.

There is growing scientific evidence that strongly disputes the global warming phenomenon. It's unfortunate that people we elect to represent our interest are too interested in their own personal agenda to pay attention to facts.

The Senate's Saturday Night Special

While some people will be watching the Saturday night games of college football, or just partaking in other relaxing weekend activities, our elected officials in the Senate will start debating the merits of the Senate's Health Care bill. That's right . . . on a Saturday night.

First, a brief history lesson. During the Bush years, the media was quick to point out news dumps on Fridays from the White House. Even as a conservative, it did seem that the White House was just trying to feign ignorance about what it was doing. The more the Bush White House tried to avoid making news on Friday evenings, the more it made news. I understand that the Senate is not the White House, but a bill that would consume 1/6 of the country's economy should be a bit more important than a Saturday night debate.

The people who will be paying any close attention to the debate will be reporters and those ardently opposed to government-run health care.

One thing this really does is jumble up talking points for Sunday morning news shows. The Ft. Hood shooter is still in the news for his Middle East ties. President Obama still hasn't decided what to do in Afghanistan. There are too many talking points to have a serious discussion about the health care bill.

I'm not opposed to a debate, but neither the House or Senate version brings up tort reform. The only way to truly curb health care costs is to reform litigation. The biggest travesty of all would be the Senate actually passing something at 12:30 AM Sunday morning.

Schools Come Under Fire for Not Airing Obama Speech

President Obama's plan to give a planned speech to elementary school kids ran into a big snag last week when Fox News reported it, then started digging to see what would actually be in the speech. Anyone who's seen any news over the last few days knows that Obama is going to talk about reaching one's educational goals and doing your best, and so on. This sounds like a typical pep-talk to school kids.

I for one am all in favor of doing anything to get our kids to strive to do better in school. I just hope it doesn't turn into a future fundraiser for ANY political party, Republic, Libertarian, Green, or Democrat.

What's more disheartening about the entire event is the way Obama supporters are attacking schools that are choosing not to air it as a live event. Here in Eastern North Carolina, Pitt County Schools have decided to record it, and re-air it at another time after administrators have had a chance to preview it. That decision is in-line with the school system's policy on viewing educational materials. It must be previewed to make sure it is applicable to the students viewing it and is also educationally relevant. The timing of the President's speech also conflicts with students' lunch times. Some students would miss all or some of their state mandated lunch period. The county also doesn't have the bandwidth capacity to have students watch it live. Pitt Schools are planning on recording it, then letting school administrators determine what grades should view it, then plan appropriate class time to do so.

However, some advocacy groups are up in arms that Pitt Schools are not airing the speech live. If you want to know why they aren't, re-read the above paragraph. Some groups are saying the decision by system administrators is racist since the speech isn't being shown live. So, since administrators are actually following guidelines set forth BEFORE President Obama took office, they are racist. And I imagine that Pitt County isn't the only school system with these guidelines in place, so there are a lot of racist school administrators all across the country. If President Obama was going to give a speech with a bunch of knock-knock jokes and schools decided not to air it, would they be racist then, too? Community groups who are concerned about airing of the speech should record it themselves. Choose a community center or church and show it there with parents present so they can also participate in the discussion.

It is important for schools to do what they can to keep kids in school. It is also admirable for President Obama and previous presidents to make this an important issue. However, if community leaders and activists want to make an issue of the speech not airing, they should also do their part in keeping kids in school and decreasing the drop-out rate. This is an issue that should not be left for the President of the United States to handle. Parents are more accountable for this issue than President Obama and school administrators are.

Coming to a Classroom Near You

It's been in the news for the last few days now. President Obama will be giving a speech to kids from Pre-K to sixth grade next Tuesday. The White House is spinning this into just a general speech about the importance of education. Thats fine and dandy, if that what it truly is. The President has surrounded himself with far-left radicals that would love nothing more than to turn kids into little left-wing radicals from the start.

The Department of Education has already come under fire for distributing accompaning learning materials and follow up questions to ask the kids after the speech. Good luck asking a group of 1st graders how the speech made them feel.

If Obama wanted kids to have more fun learning, he would do what is within his Constitutional power to improve the economy so states would have more tax revenues to hire for teaching positions they have had to leave vacant. School systems are so strapped for cash they have basically eliminated all unneccesary travel and trips. My wife, who is a teacher, has a yearly music educators conference. This year, she has already learned that the school will not reimburse her for any costs (registration, hotel, meals, gas, paying for her substute) associated with the conference. So, she may not even attend.

Maybe Bill Clinton should give Obama some advice. "It's the economy, stupid."