Friday, April 23, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
"It's a Trust Issue" Part 1 By: Tanner Stoker
Throughout the highly energetic presidential campaign, many promises were made by Barack Obama. Whether it be no new taxes on 95% of Americans, or to not tax Health Care Benefits, President Obama has been less than faithful to his campaign pledges. Lets take a look...
“Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase - not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes,” (Obama, Sept 2008)
FACTS
-President Obama has increased the Cigarette tax by 159%, a move that will directly affect 39% of the lowest income bracket and 21% of Adults in general.
-The new Health Care bill contains 7 taxes that break Obamas "firm pledge" not to raise taxes.
*Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Page 324/Sec. 1501/Jan 2014*)
*Employer Mandate Tax (Page 348/Sec. 1513/Jan 2014*)
*Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 1997/Sec. 9003/$5 bil/Jan 2011)
*HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Page 1998/Sec. 9004/$1.3 bil/Jan 2011)
*Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$14 bil/Jan 2011)
*Medical Itemized Deductions Cap (Page 2034/Sec. 9013/$15.2 bil/Jan 2013)
*Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Page 373 of Manager’s amendment/$2.7 billion/July 1, 2010)
-Also, President Obama and many in Congress are proposing a form of Cap and Trade. If it is anything like the one previousily proposed in his first year, it will increase the taxes of all Americans.
"We are going to ban all earmarks,”
-The first spending bill signed by President Obama had over 9,000 earmarks.
"we’re going to do all the negotiations on C-SPAN, So the American people will be able to watch.”
-The following is a quote from C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb, “The only time we’ve been allowed to cover the White House part of it was one hour inside the East Room, which was kind of just a show horse type of thing.”
“When there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you the public will have five days to look online, and find out what’s in it before I sign it.”
-This promise was immediately broken when President Obama signed his first bill, the Fair Pay Act. It's been broken many times since.
“what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.”
-Take a look at the following graph found on http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/20/obamas-broken-promises/...
-One will notice that spending grew under every president, but look at how sharply it grows under President Obama. Scary. So the question is raised, can we trust this man?
“Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase - not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes,” (Obama, Sept 2008)
FACTS
-President Obama has increased the Cigarette tax by 159%, a move that will directly affect 39% of the lowest income bracket and 21% of Adults in general.
-The new Health Care bill contains 7 taxes that break Obamas "firm pledge" not to raise taxes.
*Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Page 324/Sec. 1501/Jan 2014*)
*Employer Mandate Tax (Page 348/Sec. 1513/Jan 2014*)
*Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 1997/Sec. 9003/$5 bil/Jan 2011)
*HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Page 1998/Sec. 9004/$1.3 bil/Jan 2011)
*Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$14 bil/Jan 2011)
*Medical Itemized Deductions Cap (Page 2034/Sec. 9013/$15.2 bil/Jan 2013)
*Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Page 373 of Manager’s amendment/$2.7 billion/July 1, 2010)
-Also, President Obama and many in Congress are proposing a form of Cap and Trade. If it is anything like the one previousily proposed in his first year, it will increase the taxes of all Americans.
"We are going to ban all earmarks,”
-The first spending bill signed by President Obama had over 9,000 earmarks.
"we’re going to do all the negotiations on C-SPAN, So the American people will be able to watch.”
-The following is a quote from C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb, “The only time we’ve been allowed to cover the White House part of it was one hour inside the East Room, which was kind of just a show horse type of thing.”
“When there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you the public will have five days to look online, and find out what’s in it before I sign it.”
-This promise was immediately broken when President Obama signed his first bill, the Fair Pay Act. It's been broken many times since.
“what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.”
-Take a look at the following graph found on http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/20/obamas-broken-promises/...
-One will notice that spending grew under every president, but look at how sharply it grows under President Obama. Scary. So the question is raised, can we trust this man?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
"What the New Health Care Bill Means for You" By: Tanner Stoker
I presume most all of us are aware of the current situation in Washington DC dealing with the newly passed Health Care bill. The Democrats have taken it on themselves to completely ignore the will of the American people and pass a Health Care bill that may just bring our economy to the brink of total ruin. Without getting into much detail about how that one vote will destroy their political careers, lets take a look at what is in the newly signed bill. After much research of the content of the bill, I gathered 20 major problems that might peak your interest. Here they are..
1. You are young and don't want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the "privilege." (Section 1501)
2.You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. (Section 2701).
3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).
4. Think you'd like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn't cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that's what the customer wants. (Section 2712).
5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn't allow your employees' slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).
6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
You're a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You're a woman who can't have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You're a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).
7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a "Bronze plan," which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d)(1)(A))
8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you'd like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).
9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 50 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).
10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can't do that. (Section 9005 (i)).
11. If you are a physician and you don't want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It's not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients' care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))
12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a "Medicare provider agreement" by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn't have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A)).
13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can't (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a county where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C))
14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed "unreasonable" by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)
15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).
16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).
17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)
18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).
19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).
That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).
20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).
If this doesn't make you mad then I don't know what will! I encourage all who read this to write your state level officials and let them know how you feel about this bill and demand that they take action against the Federal Government for attempting to impose it upon us. 13 states have already filed suit, and many more will! As Americans, we cannot afford to sit aside as our Constitution is shredded and as our liberties are taken away. This bill will not create a completely socialist state in America, but it is a giant leap in that direction. If one of your elected officials voted for this bill, write them and let them know that they have made a mistake. Above all, wish them good luck in finding a new job in the tough economic environment that they have created.
1. You are young and don't want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the "privilege." (Section 1501)
2.You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. (Section 2701).
3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).
4. Think you'd like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn't cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that's what the customer wants. (Section 2712).
5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn't allow your employees' slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).
6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
You're a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You're a woman who can't have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You're a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).
7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a "Bronze plan," which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d)(1)(A))
8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you'd like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).
9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 50 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).
10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can't do that. (Section 9005 (i)).
11. If you are a physician and you don't want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It's not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients' care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))
12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a "Medicare provider agreement" by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn't have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A)).
13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can't (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a county where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C))
14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed "unreasonable" by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)
15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).
16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).
17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)
18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).
19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).
That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).
20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).
If this doesn't make you mad then I don't know what will! I encourage all who read this to write your state level officials and let them know how you feel about this bill and demand that they take action against the Federal Government for attempting to impose it upon us. 13 states have already filed suit, and many more will! As Americans, we cannot afford to sit aside as our Constitution is shredded and as our liberties are taken away. This bill will not create a completely socialist state in America, but it is a giant leap in that direction. If one of your elected officials voted for this bill, write them and let them know that they have made a mistake. Above all, wish them good luck in finding a new job in the tough economic environment that they have created.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Inauguration extravaganza sees journalists caught up in the moment
A comparison of Obama's celebration to Bush's in 2005 is a reminder that the media must guard against the bad habit of not asking questions.
James Rainey
January 25, 2009
When George Bush's people put on a $42-million inaugural program four years ago, many editorial writers and columnists around America came unglued.
A St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times commentator said the president needed to prove that his call for sacrifice "is more than just empty words." A Washington Post columnist suggested Bush & Co. should be ashamed of staging lavish parties in the face of their debacle in Iraq. A columnist at the New York Observer evoked images of Louis XIV.
It would have been nice, for the sake of consistency and fairness, if the commentariat had leveled a measure of that same attitude at last week's Obamapalooza, which cost roughly the same but drew a fraction of the blow-back.
Critics on the right have explained the discrepancy with their default argument about liberal media bias. But I think President Obama got a (mostly) free pass on his lavish coming-out party because of other bad media habits: like the tendency to follow the pack, to embrace critiques if they are buttressed by a politician's allies and, especially, to get swept up in the mood of the moment.
Reporters -- yes, even columnists -- are human. They get carried away with the big story and have trouble changing direction -- which last week centered on all the people who came a long way to be a part of history.
"The press is reflecting a euphoria about the Obama presidency that is real and a honeymoon that any new president gets," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. "But it's important for media not to get caught up in that euphoria."
First, the facts as laid out by the nonpartisan FactCheck .org: Obama's private fundraising for inaugural parties and events will probably come to $45 million. Adjusted for inflation, that would amount to slightly less than the $42.3 million that Bush raised for his second inaugural.
That's not counting the well over $100 million that taxpayers had to shell out this year and in 2005 for a phalanx of local, state and federal police and security agencies.
Contrary to some assertions, many news organizations -- including the Los Angeles Times -- quoted critics about the unseemliness of partying so hearty at a time like this, when Circuit City clerks, Microsoft techies and lots of others are swelling the unemployment lines.
Three days before Obama was sworn in, the Associated Press captured the incongruity with a story that began: "Unemployment is up. The stock market is down. Let's party."
That piece played the hypocrisy card on a couple of Democratic congressmen (Anthony Weiner of New York and Jim McDermott of Washington) who argued four years ago that, with the nation at war, Bush should rein in his celebration.
America's still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and now faces a painful recession. But the congressmen didn't express the same concern, the AP reported, when it was their own party getting ready to party.
So, Obama's pricey debut has not gone unnoted. But the critics attacked Bush more fiercely and in greater numbers four years ago. As one measure, an online search for the words "Bush, inauguration, extravagant" for the three months around the 2005 inaugural turned up 140 news stories, compared with 99 for a similar search on Obama.
Why the difference?
Reporters and columnists tend to feel they have a particularly free hand to launch criticisms when a politician's allies agree there is a problem.
In 2005, Bush supporter and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban helped open the floodgates when he told the press that the inaugural balls should be canceled and the money donated to tsunami victims in South Asia.
The Washington Post found a "white-collar Republican" lodging a similar complaint. And Newsday on Long Island added oomph to the argument when it reported how the parents of soldiers serving in Iraq said the celebration money would be better spent on body armor for their sons.
No equivalent critics emerged this time around. But that doesn't mean the press shouldn't have raised the obvious question. With Obama speaking eloquently about the need for sacrifice in a time of need, it seems only natural people might want to know how that squares with a $150-million party.
Yes, this was an inauguration for the history books. Yes, the country needed its spirits lifted. Nothing would have, or should have, driven Obama's achievement off front pages.
But we have learned, painfully, what happens when journalists get caught up in the mood of the moment -- to the exclusion of other ideas.
They stop asking questions. They channel the popular narrative. They even watch young men and women being shipped overseas without demanding sufficient justification.
The press' failure to buck popular sentiment worked in Bush's (short-term) favor, as the president pushed toward war in Iraq.
That failure said much more about the press' psychology -- caught up in the fear of terrorism and desire to unite behind the commander in chief -- than it did about its ideology, which generally tends toward the liberal and antiwar.
Six years later, the public overwhelmingly supports the new president. Surveys show that even a majority of Republicans have a positive view of Obama.
That gives Obama tremendous power -- and the press a tremendous responsibility, to avoid being carried away.
It might not be a matter of life and death, but I'd still like to know: What else could we have gotten with that $150 million?
James Rainey
January 25, 2009
When George Bush's people put on a $42-million inaugural program four years ago, many editorial writers and columnists around America came unglued.
A St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times commentator said the president needed to prove that his call for sacrifice "is more than just empty words." A Washington Post columnist suggested Bush & Co. should be ashamed of staging lavish parties in the face of their debacle in Iraq. A columnist at the New York Observer evoked images of Louis XIV.
It would have been nice, for the sake of consistency and fairness, if the commentariat had leveled a measure of that same attitude at last week's Obamapalooza, which cost roughly the same but drew a fraction of the blow-back.
Critics on the right have explained the discrepancy with their default argument about liberal media bias. But I think President Obama got a (mostly) free pass on his lavish coming-out party because of other bad media habits: like the tendency to follow the pack, to embrace critiques if they are buttressed by a politician's allies and, especially, to get swept up in the mood of the moment.
Reporters -- yes, even columnists -- are human. They get carried away with the big story and have trouble changing direction -- which last week centered on all the people who came a long way to be a part of history.
"The press is reflecting a euphoria about the Obama presidency that is real and a honeymoon that any new president gets," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. "But it's important for media not to get caught up in that euphoria."
First, the facts as laid out by the nonpartisan FactCheck .org: Obama's private fundraising for inaugural parties and events will probably come to $45 million. Adjusted for inflation, that would amount to slightly less than the $42.3 million that Bush raised for his second inaugural.
That's not counting the well over $100 million that taxpayers had to shell out this year and in 2005 for a phalanx of local, state and federal police and security agencies.
Contrary to some assertions, many news organizations -- including the Los Angeles Times -- quoted critics about the unseemliness of partying so hearty at a time like this, when Circuit City clerks, Microsoft techies and lots of others are swelling the unemployment lines.
Three days before Obama was sworn in, the Associated Press captured the incongruity with a story that began: "Unemployment is up. The stock market is down. Let's party."
That piece played the hypocrisy card on a couple of Democratic congressmen (Anthony Weiner of New York and Jim McDermott of Washington) who argued four years ago that, with the nation at war, Bush should rein in his celebration.
America's still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and now faces a painful recession. But the congressmen didn't express the same concern, the AP reported, when it was their own party getting ready to party.
So, Obama's pricey debut has not gone unnoted. But the critics attacked Bush more fiercely and in greater numbers four years ago. As one measure, an online search for the words "Bush, inauguration, extravagant" for the three months around the 2005 inaugural turned up 140 news stories, compared with 99 for a similar search on Obama.
Why the difference?
Reporters and columnists tend to feel they have a particularly free hand to launch criticisms when a politician's allies agree there is a problem.
In 2005, Bush supporter and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban helped open the floodgates when he told the press that the inaugural balls should be canceled and the money donated to tsunami victims in South Asia.
The Washington Post found a "white-collar Republican" lodging a similar complaint. And Newsday on Long Island added oomph to the argument when it reported how the parents of soldiers serving in Iraq said the celebration money would be better spent on body armor for their sons.
No equivalent critics emerged this time around. But that doesn't mean the press shouldn't have raised the obvious question. With Obama speaking eloquently about the need for sacrifice in a time of need, it seems only natural people might want to know how that squares with a $150-million party.
Yes, this was an inauguration for the history books. Yes, the country needed its spirits lifted. Nothing would have, or should have, driven Obama's achievement off front pages.
But we have learned, painfully, what happens when journalists get caught up in the mood of the moment -- to the exclusion of other ideas.
They stop asking questions. They channel the popular narrative. They even watch young men and women being shipped overseas without demanding sufficient justification.
The press' failure to buck popular sentiment worked in Bush's (short-term) favor, as the president pushed toward war in Iraq.
That failure said much more about the press' psychology -- caught up in the fear of terrorism and desire to unite behind the commander in chief -- than it did about its ideology, which generally tends toward the liberal and antiwar.
Six years later, the public overwhelmingly supports the new president. Surveys show that even a majority of Republicans have a positive view of Obama.
That gives Obama tremendous power -- and the press a tremendous responsibility, to avoid being carried away.
It might not be a matter of life and death, but I'd still like to know: What else could we have gotten with that $150 million?
Sunday, January 4, 2009
2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved
Looking back over my columns of the past 12 months, one of their major themes was neatly encapsulated by two recent items from The Daily Telegraph. The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day".
Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.
First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.
Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to materialise.
Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents, temperatures have failed to rise as predicted (although they plaintively assure us that this cooling effect is merely "masking the underlying warming trend", and that the temperature rise will resume worse than ever by the middle of the next decade).
Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.
Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.
Suddenly it has become rather less appealing that we should divert trillions of dollars, pounds and euros into the fantasy that we could reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 per cent. All those grandiose projects for "emissions trading", "carbon capture", building tens of thousands more useless wind turbines, switching vast areas of farmland from producing food to "biofuels", are being exposed as no more than enormously damaging and futile gestures, costing astronomic sums we no longer possess.
As 2009 dawns, it is time we in Britain faced up to the genuine crisis now fast approaching from the fact that – unless we get on very soon with building enough proper power stations to fill our looming "energy gap" - within a few years our lights will go out and what remains of our economy will judder to a halt. After years of infantile displacement activity, it is high time our politicians – along with those of the EU and President Obama's US – were brought back with a mighty jolt into contact with the real world.
I must end this year by again paying tribute to my readers for the wonderful generosity with which they came to the aid of two causes. First their donations made it possible for the latest "metric martyr", the east London market trader Janet Devers, to fight Hackney council's vindictive decision to prosecute her on 13 criminal charges, ranging from selling in pounds and ounces to selling produce "by the bowl" (to avoid using weights her customers dislike and don't understand). The embarrassment caused by this historic battle has thrown the forced metrication policy of both our governments, in London and Brussels, into total disarray.
Since Hackney backed out of allowing four criminal charges against Janet to go before a jury next month, all that remains is for her to win her appeal in February against eight convictions which now look quite absurd (including those for selling veg by the bowl, as thousands of other London market traders do every day). The final goal, as Neil Herron of the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund insists, must then be a pardon for the late Steve Thoburn and the four other original "martyrs" who were found guilty in 2002 – after a legal battle also made possible by this column's readers – of breaking laws so ridiculous that the EU Commission has even denied they existed (but which are still on the statute book).
Readers were equally generous this year in rushing to the aid of Sue Smith, whose son was killed in a Snatch Land Rover in Iraq in 2005. Their contributions made it possible for her to carry on with the High Court action she has brought against the Ministry of Defence, with the sole aim of calling it to account for needlessly risking soldiers' lives by sending them into battle in hopelessly inappropriate vehicles. Thanks not least to Mrs Smith's determined fight, the Snatch Land Rover scandal, first reported here in 2006, has at last become a national cause celebre.
May I finally thank all those readers who have written to me in 2008 – so many that, as usual, it has not been possible to answer all their messages. But their support and information has been hugely appreciated. May I wish them and all of you a happy (if globally not too warm) New Year.
By Christopher Booker
Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.
First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.
Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to materialise.
Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents, temperatures have failed to rise as predicted (although they plaintively assure us that this cooling effect is merely "masking the underlying warming trend", and that the temperature rise will resume worse than ever by the middle of the next decade).
Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.
Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.
Suddenly it has become rather less appealing that we should divert trillions of dollars, pounds and euros into the fantasy that we could reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 per cent. All those grandiose projects for "emissions trading", "carbon capture", building tens of thousands more useless wind turbines, switching vast areas of farmland from producing food to "biofuels", are being exposed as no more than enormously damaging and futile gestures, costing astronomic sums we no longer possess.
As 2009 dawns, it is time we in Britain faced up to the genuine crisis now fast approaching from the fact that – unless we get on very soon with building enough proper power stations to fill our looming "energy gap" - within a few years our lights will go out and what remains of our economy will judder to a halt. After years of infantile displacement activity, it is high time our politicians – along with those of the EU and President Obama's US – were brought back with a mighty jolt into contact with the real world.
I must end this year by again paying tribute to my readers for the wonderful generosity with which they came to the aid of two causes. First their donations made it possible for the latest "metric martyr", the east London market trader Janet Devers, to fight Hackney council's vindictive decision to prosecute her on 13 criminal charges, ranging from selling in pounds and ounces to selling produce "by the bowl" (to avoid using weights her customers dislike and don't understand). The embarrassment caused by this historic battle has thrown the forced metrication policy of both our governments, in London and Brussels, into total disarray.
Since Hackney backed out of allowing four criminal charges against Janet to go before a jury next month, all that remains is for her to win her appeal in February against eight convictions which now look quite absurd (including those for selling veg by the bowl, as thousands of other London market traders do every day). The final goal, as Neil Herron of the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund insists, must then be a pardon for the late Steve Thoburn and the four other original "martyrs" who were found guilty in 2002 – after a legal battle also made possible by this column's readers – of breaking laws so ridiculous that the EU Commission has even denied they existed (but which are still on the statute book).
Readers were equally generous this year in rushing to the aid of Sue Smith, whose son was killed in a Snatch Land Rover in Iraq in 2005. Their contributions made it possible for her to carry on with the High Court action she has brought against the Ministry of Defence, with the sole aim of calling it to account for needlessly risking soldiers' lives by sending them into battle in hopelessly inappropriate vehicles. Thanks not least to Mrs Smith's determined fight, the Snatch Land Rover scandal, first reported here in 2006, has at last become a national cause celebre.
May I finally thank all those readers who have written to me in 2008 – so many that, as usual, it has not been possible to answer all their messages. But their support and information has been hugely appreciated. May I wish them and all of you a happy (if globally not too warm) New Year.
By Christopher Booker
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Gingrich says he’d serve as GOP chairman — if the RNC wants him By:
Sunday, November 9, 2008, 03:00 PM
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Newt Gingrich has let it be known that, if Republicans want him, the former U.S House speaker is willing to serve as chairman of the national party and lead it out of the wilderness it’s blundered into.
The question is whether the 168-member Republican National Committee is open to the match.
"If a majority of the RNC thought he was needed, he would accept that appointment,” said Randy Evans’ Gingrich’s close friend and legal counsel. “He fully appreciates the urgency of the moment.”
What might strike some as coyness is in fact caution. The odds are stacked against the former Georgia congressman, for several reasons.
For one thing, six days after the election of Barack Obama and substantial gains by Democrats in the House and Senate, Republicans have yet to decide whether a serious overhaul of the party is required.
If a revolution is in order, then there’s the small matter of which side is issued the pitchforks, and whose castle is to be stormed. Is this a fight to purge moderates, or a battle to expand the tent?
“The RNC has to do some soul-searching and decide what level of change is necessary,” Evans said. “If that answer is bold, energetic change led by someone who has done it before, then Newt would be a good choice.”
If the party is eying a shift toward the middle, Evans added, “that isn’t Newt.”
Though he retains his reputation as a polarizing figure, Gingrich served as a sideline strategist for the GOP during the presidential season. He pointed McCain to the issue of offshore drilling. But Gingrich also helped generate skepticism over the Wall Street bailout — which McCain and other Senate Republicans supported.
A Gingrich chairmanship might get loud support from the GOP’s talk-radio contingent. The former House speaker has close ties to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Neal Boortz.
But the RNC is a different, often parochial animal, made up of the top three members of the GOP establishment in every state and U.S. territory, plus the District of Columbia.
The RNC is scheduled to make its decision in January, shortly after Obama’s historic inauguration. Had John McCain made it to the White House, committee members would have deferred to his choice.
But without White House clout, past elections have shown that the RNC prefers — though is not required — to choose from within its ranks. And the 65-year-old Gingrich is not an RNC member.
Moreover, while President Bush still searches out new lows in popularity, the RNC is peopled with those who helped him win two elections — and many remain loyal. Yet Gingrich, seeing Bush squander the fruits of his ’94 revolution, has been ruthless in his criticism of the out-going president.
A sifting of the ashes will begin in Miami with a Wednesday meeting of the Republican Governors Association. Gingrich and other candidates will be there to buttonhole party leaders in small, private conversations.
Those interested in the job include Saul Anuzis, chairman of the Michigan GOP, and Katon Dawson, the South Carolina chairman. The current RNC chairman, Mike Duncan, also seeks another term.
One potential candidate who has taken himself out of the race is RNC member Alec Poitevint of Bainbridge, who chaired the successful McCain campaign in Georgia. Poitevint said he’ll concentrate on the re-election of Saxby Chambliss to the U.S. Senate.
Pointevint wouldn’t tip his hand on who he intends to vote for in January. But he said any candidate interested in the chairmanship job needs to prove his mettle — by showing up in Georgia to help Chambliss through the runoff.
Sue Everhart, the state GOP chairman and another RNC member, in previous conversations hasn’t expressed enthusiasm for a Gingrich chairmanship. But Georgia’s third RNC member, Linda Herren of Atlanta, said making Gingrich the official voice of the GOP would be fine by her.
“There were too many deals cut with the Democrats. We have no rudder,” Herren said. On the other hand, she said, if Gingrich really wants the GOP chairmanship, a front-porch strategy won’t cut it. She’s already been lobbied by a half-dozen candidates.
“Newt - if he wants to do it, he’ll have to start pedaling now,” Herren said.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Newt Gingrich has let it be known that, if Republicans want him, the former U.S House speaker is willing to serve as chairman of the national party and lead it out of the wilderness it’s blundered into.
The question is whether the 168-member Republican National Committee is open to the match.
"If a majority of the RNC thought he was needed, he would accept that appointment,” said Randy Evans’ Gingrich’s close friend and legal counsel. “He fully appreciates the urgency of the moment.”
What might strike some as coyness is in fact caution. The odds are stacked against the former Georgia congressman, for several reasons.
For one thing, six days after the election of Barack Obama and substantial gains by Democrats in the House and Senate, Republicans have yet to decide whether a serious overhaul of the party is required.
If a revolution is in order, then there’s the small matter of which side is issued the pitchforks, and whose castle is to be stormed. Is this a fight to purge moderates, or a battle to expand the tent?
“The RNC has to do some soul-searching and decide what level of change is necessary,” Evans said. “If that answer is bold, energetic change led by someone who has done it before, then Newt would be a good choice.”
If the party is eying a shift toward the middle, Evans added, “that isn’t Newt.”
Though he retains his reputation as a polarizing figure, Gingrich served as a sideline strategist for the GOP during the presidential season. He pointed McCain to the issue of offshore drilling. But Gingrich also helped generate skepticism over the Wall Street bailout — which McCain and other Senate Republicans supported.
A Gingrich chairmanship might get loud support from the GOP’s talk-radio contingent. The former House speaker has close ties to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Neal Boortz.
But the RNC is a different, often parochial animal, made up of the top three members of the GOP establishment in every state and U.S. territory, plus the District of Columbia.
The RNC is scheduled to make its decision in January, shortly after Obama’s historic inauguration. Had John McCain made it to the White House, committee members would have deferred to his choice.
But without White House clout, past elections have shown that the RNC prefers — though is not required — to choose from within its ranks. And the 65-year-old Gingrich is not an RNC member.
Moreover, while President Bush still searches out new lows in popularity, the RNC is peopled with those who helped him win two elections — and many remain loyal. Yet Gingrich, seeing Bush squander the fruits of his ’94 revolution, has been ruthless in his criticism of the out-going president.
A sifting of the ashes will begin in Miami with a Wednesday meeting of the Republican Governors Association. Gingrich and other candidates will be there to buttonhole party leaders in small, private conversations.
Those interested in the job include Saul Anuzis, chairman of the Michigan GOP, and Katon Dawson, the South Carolina chairman. The current RNC chairman, Mike Duncan, also seeks another term.
One potential candidate who has taken himself out of the race is RNC member Alec Poitevint of Bainbridge, who chaired the successful McCain campaign in Georgia. Poitevint said he’ll concentrate on the re-election of Saxby Chambliss to the U.S. Senate.
Pointevint wouldn’t tip his hand on who he intends to vote for in January. But he said any candidate interested in the chairmanship job needs to prove his mettle — by showing up in Georgia to help Chambliss through the runoff.
Sue Everhart, the state GOP chairman and another RNC member, in previous conversations hasn’t expressed enthusiasm for a Gingrich chairmanship. But Georgia’s third RNC member, Linda Herren of Atlanta, said making Gingrich the official voice of the GOP would be fine by her.
“There were too many deals cut with the Democrats. We have no rudder,” Herren said. On the other hand, she said, if Gingrich really wants the GOP chairmanship, a front-porch strategy won’t cut it. She’s already been lobbied by a half-dozen candidates.
“Newt - if he wants to do it, he’ll have to start pedaling now,” Herren said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)