Obama science adviser thinks that Trees Legal Should Have Standing to Sue in Court

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51756

Since the 1970s, some radical environmentalists have argued that trees
have legal rights and should be allowed to go to court to protect
those rights.

The idea has been endorsed by John P. Holdren, the man who now advises
President Barack Obama on science and technology issues.

Giving "natural objects" -- like trees -- standing to sue in a court
of law would have a "most salubrious" effect on the environment,
Holdren wrote the 1970s.

"One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious
effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law
professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, 'Should
Trees Have Standing?'" Holdren said in a 1977 book that he co-wrote
with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich.

"In that tightly reasoned essay, Stone points out the obvious
advantages of giving natural objects standing, just as such inanimate
objects as corporations, trusts, and ships are now held to have legal
rights and duties," Holdren added.

According to Holdren and the Ehrlichs, the notion of legal standing
for inanimate objects would not be as unprecedented as it might sound.
"The legal machinery and the basic legal notions needed to control
pollution are already in existence," they wrote. . . .

Germans Hoarding Traditional Light Bulbs

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,638494,00.html

Germans Hoarding Traditional Light Bulbs

The staggered phase out of energy-wasting light bulbs begins on Sept.
1 in Germany. The unpopularity of the energy-saving compact
fluorescent bulbs that will replace them is leading consumers and
retailers to start hoarding the traditional bulbs.

As the Sept. 1 deadline for the implementation of the first phase of
the EU's ban on incandescent light bulbs approaches, shoppers,
retailers and even museums are hoarding the precious wares -- and
helping the manufacturers make a bundle.

Germans are hoarding traditional incandescent light bulbs as their
planned phase out -- in favor of energy-saving compact flourescent
bulbs -- approaches.
DPA

Germans are hoarding traditional incandescent light bulbs as their
planned phase out -- in favor of energy-saving compact flourescent
bulbs -- approaches.

The EU ban, adopted in March, calls for the gradual replacement of
traditional light bulbs with supposedly more energy-efficient compact
fluorescent bulbs (CFL). The first to go, on Sept. 1, will be 100-watt
bulbs. Bulbs of other wattages will then gradually fall under the ban,
which is expected to cover all such bulbs by Sept. 1, 2012 (see
graphic below).

Hardware stores and home-improvement chains in Germany are seeing
massive increases in the sales of the traditional bulbs. Obi reports a
27 percent growth in sales over the same period a year ago. Hornbach
has seen its frosted-glass light bulb sales increase by 40-112
percent. When it comes to 100-watt bulbs, Max Bahr has seen an 80
percent jump in sales, while the figure has been 150 percent for its
competitor Praktiker.

"It's unbelievable what is happening," says Werner Wiesner, the head
of Megaman, a manufacturer of energy-saving bulbs. Wiesner recounts a
story of how one of his field representatives recently saw a man in a
hardware store with a shopping cart full of light bulbs of all types
worth more than €200 ($285). "That's enough for the next 20 years."

And hoarding doesn't seem to be just a customer phenomenon. The EU law
only forbids producing and importing incandescent bulbs but does not
outlaw their sale. "We've stocked up well," a spokesman for Praktiker
told SPIEGEL.

And what's ironic -- in the short term, at least -- is that the
companies that manufacture the climate-killing bulbs are seeing a big
boost in sales. According to the GfK market research company, sales in
Germany of incandescent light bulbs between January and April 20,
2009, saw a 20 percent jump over the same period a year earlier, while
CFL sales shrank by 2 percent.

'Light Bulb Socialism'

The EU's ban was originally meant to help it reach its targets on
energy efficiency and climate protection. Though much cheaper to buy,
incandescent bulbs have long been seen as wasteful because only 5
percent of the energy they consume goes to light production, with the
rest just becoming heat.

And consumers were also supposed to feel a positive effect in their
pocketbooks as well. European Energy Commission Andris Piebalgs has
estimated that the average European household will save €50 per year
on electricity bills and that annual CO2 emissions in Europe will be
cut by 15 millions tons.

Schedule for the implementation of the EU ban on flourescent light bulbs.
Zoom
DER SPIEGEL

Schedule for the implementation of the EU ban on flourescent light bulbs.
But -- like laws on bent cucumbers -- many have mocked the light bulb
legislation as just another example of an EU bureaucracy gone wild.
Holger Krahmer, for example, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP)
from Germany's business-friendly FDP party has accused the EU of
imposing 'light bulb socialism."

In fact, in creating this legislation, the EU failed to address
consumer preferences and the reservations of a number of other groups.
For example, many have complained that the light emitted by a CFL bulb
is colder and weaker and that its high-frequency flickering can cause
headaches. Then there are complaints about the mercury the CFL bulbs
contain, how there is no system for disposing of them in a convenient
and environmentally friendly way, and how they allegedly result in
exposure to radiation levels higher than allowed under international
guidelines.

For some, the issue is also one of broken promises. For example,
manufacturers of CFL bulbs justify their higher prices by claiming
that they last much longer than traditional bulbs. But a recent test
by the environmentally-oriented consumer-protection magazine Öko Test
found that 16 of the 32 bulb types tested gave up the ghost after
6,000 hours of use -- or much earlier than their manufacturers had
promised.

And then, of course, there's the issue of the light the bulbs emit.
Many complain that the lights are just not bright enough and that they
falsify colors. The Hamburger Kunsthalle, for example, recently made a
bulk order for 600 incandescent light bulbs to make sure that it can
keep illuminating the works it displays in the time-honored way.

NEWSLETTER
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der
Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box
everyday.

The aesthetic issue is a powerful one. For Munich-based lighting
designer Ingo Maurer, the CFL bulbs are ushering in a decrease in the
quality of life. "We recommend protests against the ban, civil
disobedience and the timely hoarding of lighting implements," Maurer
told SPIEGEL. He also adds that he believes the ban might drive more
people to use more candles, which are about as bad as you can get in
terms of energy efficiency.

As Wiesner sees it, Brussels did it all wrong. Rather than banning
incandescent bulbs, Wiesner argues, it should have slapped a €5
surcharge on every incandescent bulb, arguing that it would have made
people think a bit more before buying them. "That move alone would
have been enough to allow the EU to achieve its goal," Wiesner says.

Reported by Alexander Jung

Think the answer to America's problems is bigger government?

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0803/international-invest-guide-obama-sweden-public-downsizing.html

Sweden's Public Downsizing
Anita Raghavan, 07.15.09, 06:00 PM EDT
Forbes Magazine dated August 03, 2009

Think the answer to America's problems is bigger government? Swedish
Finance Minister Anders Borg has seen the result up close and says
it's not pretty for the economy or investors.

Anders Borg has a message for those who look to government to take
over health care, rescue the financial system and run troubled
corporations: I have seen the future--and it doesn't work.

As the finance minister of Sweden, Borg is the chief financial officer
of a country long known as a walking billboard for a social welfare
state. In Borg's view, the 1970s and 1980s were lost decades for
Sweden. Left-leaning politicians pushed government spending, excluding
investment outlays, from 22% of gross domestic product in 1970 to 30%
in 1980. Real growth fell from an average of 4.4% annually in the
1960s to 2.4% in the 1970s and remained low for the next two decades.

"Like many societies, we went too far in our welfare-state ambitions,"
say Borg (pronounced "Bor-ee").

These days President Obama is overseeing the largest increase in the
U.S. government's share of the economy since it was conducting a world
war almost seven decades ago. Economic stimulus, bailouts and expanded
health care will all have to be paid for someday with either taxes or
inflation. Borg is pushing Sweden in the opposite direction,
encouraging the legislature to cut taxes, cap spending and privatize
parts of health care.

"If you're working yourselves upwards in taxes and deficits, we're
working ourselves downwards," says Borg. (FORBES recently interviewed
him in Berlin, where he had delivered a speech.)

If you think Borg has the right idea, put your money on it. Sell some
U.S. stocks and buy some Swedish ones (see table, below).
pic
Featured Content

Borg, 41, doesn't look like a finance minister or fiscal conservative.
The Stockholm native wears a long ponytail and gold loop earring. His
hippie appearance hides a dyed-in-the-wool free marketeer who
champions the idea of "making work pay." That is a revolutionary
concept in a country where the penalty for working has historically
been high taxes and the reward for staying home a comfortable welfare
or unemployment check.

In a 1988 debate that is now a YouTube favorite of conservative
Swedes, Borg calls for a "night watchman's state" in which the
government provides security but little else. In a book from that era,
The Sleeping People, Borg's boss, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt,
compared the effects of Sweden's welfare state to the plague and aids.

"It was a very youthful comment," Borg says of his call for
near-elimination of government. "When you become older, you get
children. [He is married with three children.] You change your views."

Or you go into politics and tone them down. Borg was born into a
family of Social Democrats. He became disenchanted after concluding
the indulgent government was turning Sweden into a "boring, stagnant
society." Borg's idols were free marketeers Margaret Thatcher and
Ronald Reagan.

After studying political science, economic history and philosophy at
Uppsala University, Borg worked for four years as a political advisor
to then prime minister Carl Bildt. Following Sweden's 1990s financial
crisis, when it bailed out its own banks, he became a securities
analyst. The first thing he noticed was how little faith investors had
in Sweden because of the size of its government sector. He came away a
firm believer in free markets and sound government finances.

Next year Sweden's government is projected to be on the hook for gross
financial liabilities equal to 57% of GDP, which is up from 48% two
years ago. The debt of U.S. government entities, by contrast, is
expected to nearly equal GDP by next year, versus 63% in 2007, says
the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development.

Borg says it's quite possible to combine "a flexible, market-oriented
system with the traditional values of Sweden." By "traditional" he
means valuing social cohesion, a publicly financed safety net of some
sort and gender equality. Parity between the sexes is a tenet of the
Social Democratic swing of the 1980s and, Borg says, of the Viking
era.

Mass. Treasurer Rips Mandated Health Insurance

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2009/07/mass_treasurer_rips_mandated_h.html

In 2006, the state of Massachusetts required every single one of its
residents to get health insurance, and every single one of its
businesses to provide it. Otherwise, residents and employers would be
fined.

Some have asked, as national healthcare reform works its way through
Congress, is there anything we can learn from the Massachusetts
experiment?

Yes, according to the state's treasurer, interviewed today on CNBC:
Whatever you do, don't do what we did.

In a blisteringly frank interview, treasurer Tim Cahill laid out some
jaw-dropping stats, which eviscerated the plan and excited every
conservative's worst fears about government getting further into the
health insurance business:

-- The program has so far cost 30 percent more than anticipated.
-- It already has a $9 billion shortfall projected over the next two years.
-- Costs have risen 41 percent since the program's inception, well
outpacing the rise in healthcare costs nationwide, which stands at 18
percent.
-- We thought this program would mean fewer people would go to
hospitals, which is the highest cost any insurance plan has to pay. In
fact, fewer people are not going to hospitals.
-- A Harvard study shows 60 percent of state residents are unhappy
with the plan. The most unhappy? Those whom it should be helping the
most -- those making $25,000 to $50,000 per year.
-- To cut costs, the program is now having to kick out legal immigrants.

Cahill summed up: "This is not a miracle by any stretch of the imagination."

Now, you should know this: Cahill is considering a run for governor as
an independent, and would likely face Gov. Deval Patrick, who has
touted the state's health insurance plan. It was, interestingly,
signed into law by a Republican -- former Gov. Mitt Romney.

But numbers are numbers. And in this case, they tell a clear story
that could be a warning for Congress.

Obama’s Science Czar Said a Born Baby ‘Will Ultimately Develop Into a Human Being’

http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51676

(CNSNews.com) - President Obama's top science adviser said in a book
he co-authored in 1973 that a newborn child "will ultimately develop
into a human being" if he or she is properly fed and socialized.

"The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth,
and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient
nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will
ultimately develop into a human being," John P. Holdren, director of
the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in
"Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions."

Holdren co-authored the book with Stanford professors Paul R. Ehrlich
and Anne H. Ehrlich. The book was published by W.H. Freeman and
Company.

At the time "Human Ecology" was published, Holdren was a senior
research fellow at the California Institute of Technology. Paul
Ehrlich, currently president of The Center for Conservation Biology at
Stanford, is also author of the 1968 bestseller, "The Population
Bomb," a book The Washington Post said "launched the popular movement
for zero population growth."

"Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions" argued that the human race
faced dire consequences unless human population growth was stopped.

"Human values and institutions have set mankind on a collision course
with the laws of nature," wrote the Ehrlichs and Holdren. "Human
beings cling jealously to their prerogative to reproduce as they
please—and they please to make each new generation larger than the
last—yet endless multiplication on a finite planet is impossible.
Most humans aspire to greater material prosperity, but the number of
people that can be supported on Earth if everyone is rich is even
smaller than if everyone is poor."

The specific passage expressing the authors' view that a baby "will
ultimately develop into a human being" is on page 235 in chapter 8 of
the book, which is titled "Population Limitation."

At the time the book was written, the Supreme Court had not yet issued
its Roe v. Wade decision, and the passage in question was part of a
subsection of the "Population Limitation" chapter that argued for
legalized abortion.

"To a biologist the question of when life begins for a human child is
almost meaningless, since life is continuous and has been since it
first began on Earth several billion years ago," wrote the Ehrlichs
and Holdren. "The precursors of the egg and sperm cells that create
the next generation have been present in the parents from the time
they were embryos themselves. To most biologists, an embryo (unborn
child during the first two or three months of development) or a fetus
is no more a complete human being than a blueprint is a building. The
fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and
given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient
nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will
ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential
elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in
some respect."

In the same paragraph, the authors continue on to note that legal
scholars hold the view that a "fetus" is not considered a "person"
under the U.S. Constitution until "it is born." But they do not
revisit the issue of when exactly the "fetus" would properly be
considered a "human being."

"From this point of view, a fetus is only a potential human being
[italics in original]," wrote the authors. "Historically, the law has
dated most rights and privileges from the moment of birth, and legal
scholars generally agree that a fetus is not a 'person' within the
meaning of the United States Constitution until it is born and living
independent of its mother's body."

The same section of the book goes on to argue that abortion spares
"unwanted children" from "undesirable consequences."

"From the standpoint of the terminated fetus, it makes no difference
whether the mother had an induced abortion or a spontaneous abortion,"
write the Ehrlichs and Holdren. "On the other hand, it subsequently
makes a great deal of difference to the child if an abortion is
denied, and the mother, contrary to her wishes, is forced to devote
her body and life to the production and care of the child. In Sweden,
studies were made to determine what eventually happened to children
born to mothers whose requests for abortions had been turned down.
When compared to a matched group of children from similar backgrounds
who had been wanted, more than twice as many as these unwanted
youngsters grew up in undesirable circumstances (illegitimate, in
broken homes, or in institutions), more than twice as many had records
of delinquency, or were deemed unfit for military service, almost
twice as many had needed psychiatric care, and nearly five times as
many had been on public assistance during their teens."

"There seems little doubt that the forced bearing of unwanted children
has undesirable consequences not only for the children themselves and
their families but for society as well, apart from the problems of
overpopulation," wrote the authors.

The Ehrlichs and Holdren then chide opponents of abortion for
condemning future generations to an "overcrowded planet."

"Those who oppose abortion often raise the argument that a decision is
being made for an unborn person who 'has no say,'" write the authors.
"But unthinking actions of the very same people help to commit future
unheard generations to misery and early death on an overcrowded
planet."

Holdren has impeccable academic credentials. He earned his bachelor's
degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his doctorate
at Stanford. He worked as a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory before becoming a senior research fellow at
California Institute of Technology. He then became a professor at the
University of California at Berkeley before joining the faculty at
Harvard in 1996, where he was the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of
Environmental Policy and director of the Program in Science,
Technology and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of
Government.

In addition to his duties at Harvard, Holdren was director of the
Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Mass.

His curriculum vitae posted at the Woods Hole Web site lists "Human
Ecology" as one of the books he has co-authored or co-edited.

"Dr. Holdren," says the Web posting, "is the author of some 300
articles and papers, and he has co-authored and co-edited some 20
books and book-length reports, such as Energy (1971), Human Ecology
(1973), Ecoscience (1977), Energy in Transition (1980), Earth and the
Human Future (1986), Strategic Defences and the Future of the Arms
Race (1987), Building Global Security Through Cooperation (1990),
Conversion of Military R&D (1998), and Ending the Energy Stalemate
(2004)."

The next to last subsection of the chapter on "Population Limitation"
in "Human Ecology" is entitled, "Involuntary Fertility Control," which
the authors stress is an "unpalatable idea."

"The third approach to population control is that of involuntary
fertility control," write the Ehrlichs and Holdren. "Several coercive
proposals deserve discussion mainly because societies may ultimately
have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are
rapidly reversed by other means."

"Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the
alternatives may be much more horrifying" the authors state at the end
of the subsection. "As those alternatives become clearer to an
increasing number of people in the 1970s, we may well find them
demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to begin
now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while
ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and
sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the
shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly,
perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be
averted."

In February, when Holdren appeared before the Senate Commerce, Science
and Transportation Committee for a confirmation hearing, he was not
asked about his comment in "Human Ecology" that a baby "will
ultimately develop into a human being."

Sen. David Vitter (R.-La.) did ask him, however, about the
population-control ideas he expressed in 1973.

"In 1973, you encouraged a, quote, 'decline in fertility to well below
replacement,' close quote, in the United States, because, quote, '280
million in 2040 is likely to be too many,' close quote," said Vitter.
"What would your number for the right population in the U.S. be
today?"

"I no longer think it's productive, senator, to focus on the optimum
population for the United States," Holdren responded. "I don't think
any of us know what the right answer is. When I wrote those lines in
1973, I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems in the United
States appeared to be being made more difficult by the rate of
population growth that then prevailed.

"I think everyone who studies these matters understands that
population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities," Holdren
continued. "It's a tough question to determine which will prevail in a
given time period. But I think the key thing today is that we need to
work to improve the conditions that all of our citizens face
economically, environmentally and in other respects. And we need to
aim for something that I have been calling 'sustainable prosperity.'"

In a subsequent question, Vitter asked, "Do you think determining
optimal population is a proper role of government?"

"No, senator, I do not," said Holdren.

The White House Press Office did not respond to emailed and telephoned
inquiries from CNSNews.com about Holdren's statement in "Human
Ecology" that a baby will "ultimately develop into a human being."

Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51610&print=on

Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care
Bill--Unless They Have 2 Lawyers to Interpret It for Them
Monday, July 27, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

(CNSNews.com) - During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon,
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point
of lawmakers reading the health care bill.

"I love these members, they get up and say, 'Read the bill,'" said Conyers.

"What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't
have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read
the bill?"

Tough love for fat people: Tax their food to pay for healthcare

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/07/tough-love-for-fatties-tax-their-food-pay-for-healthcare.html

When historians look back to identify the pivotal moments in the
nation's struggle against obesity, they might point to the current
period as the moment when those who influenced opinion and made public
policy decided it was time to take the gloves off.

As evidence of this new "get-tough" strategy on obesity, they may
well cite a study released today by the Urban Institute titled
"Reducing Obesity: Policy Strategies From the Tobacco Wars."

In the debate over healthcare reform, the added cost of caring for
patients with obesity-related diseases has become a common refrain:
most recent is the cost-of-obesity study, also released today by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It finds that as obesity
rates increased from 18.3% of Americans in 1998 to 25% in 2006, the
cost of providing treatment for those patients' weight-driven problems
increased healthcare spending by $40 billion a year.

If you happen to be the 1-in-3 Americans who is neither obese nor
overweight (and, thus, considered at risk of becoming obese), you
might well conclude that the habits of the remaining two-thirds of
Americans are costing you, big time. U.S. life expectancies are
expected to slide backward, after years of marching upward. (But
that's their statistical problem: Yours is how to make them stop
costing you all that extra money because they are presumably making
poor choices in their food consumption.)

"Facing the serious consequences of an uncontrolled obesity epidemic,
America's state and federal policy makers may need to consider
interventions every bit as forceful as those that succeeded in cutting
adult tobacco use by more than 50%," the Urban Institute report says.
It took awhile -- almost 50 years from the first surgeon general's
report on tobacco in 1964 -- to drive smoking down. But in many ways,
the drumbeat of scientific evidence and the growing cultural stigma
against obesity already are well underway -- as any parent who has
tried to bring birthday cupcakes into her child's classroom certainly
knows.

Key among the "interventions" the report weighs is that of imposing an
excise or sales tax on fattening foods. That, says the report, could
be expected to lower consumption of those foods. But it would also
generate revenues that could be used to extend health insurance
coverage to the uninsured and under-insured, and perhaps to fund
campaigns intended to make healthy foods more widely available to,
say, low-income Americans and to encourage exercise and healthy eating
habits.

If anti-tobacco campaigns are to be the model, those sales taxes could
be hefty: The World Health Organization has recommended that tobacco
taxes should represent between two-thirds and three-quarters of the
cost of, say, a package of cigarettes; a 2004 report prepared for the
Department of Agriculture suggested that, for "sinful-food" taxes to
change the way people eat, they may need to equal at least 10% to 30%
of the cost of the food.

And although 40 U.S. states now impose modest extra sales taxes on
soft drinks and a few snack items, the Urban Institute report suggests
that a truly forceful "intervention" -- one that would drive down the
consumption of fattening foods and, presumably, prevent or reverse
obesity -- would have to target pretty much all the fattening and
nutritionally empty stuff we eat: "With a more narrowly targeted tax,
consumers could simply substitute one fattening food or beverage for
another," the reports says.

Of course, the United States also would have to adopt extensive menu-
and food-labeling changes that would make "good foods" easily
distinguishable from the bad ones subject to added taxes. Not to worry
though: Several European countries, most notably Great Britain, have
led the way in this area.

And here's the payoff: Conservatively estimated, a 10% tax levied on
foods that would be defined as "less healthy" by a national standard
adopted recently in Great Britain could yield $240 billion in its
first five years and $522 billion over 10 years of implementation --
if it were to begin in October 2010. If lawmakers instituted a program
of tax subsidies to encourage the purchase of fresh and processed
fruits and vegetables, the added revenue would still be $356 billion
over 10 years.

That would pay for a lot of healthcare reform, which some have
estimated will cost as much as $1 trillion to implement over the next
ten years.

There can be little doubt that lobbyists for the food, restaurant and
grocery industries would come out swinging on any of these proposals.
But the report cites evidence of a turning political tide for
proposals that would hold the obese and other consumers of
nutritionally suspect food accountable for their choices. A recent
national poll found that 53% of Americans said they favored an
increased tax on sodas and sugary soft drinks to help pay for
healthcare reform. And even among those who opposed such an idea, 63%
switched and said they'd favor such a tax if it "would raise money for
health-care reform while also tackling the problems that stem from
being overweight."

-- Melissa Healy

CDC Chief: Soda Tax Could Combat Obesity

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5192172.shtml

While Democrats await the results of bipartisan negotiations over
health care reform in the Senate Finance Committee, one of the
proposals put before the committee received a nod of approval from
health officials today: taxing soda.

The committee -- the last congressional panel expected to produce its
own recommendations for health care reform -- listened to arguments
earlier this year both for and against imposing a three-cent tax on
sodas as well as other sugary drinks, including energy and sports
drinks like Gatorade.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a three-cent tax would
generate $24 billion over the next four years, and proponents of the
tax argued before the committee that it would lower consumption of
sugary drinks and improve Americans' overall health.

At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's "Weight of the
Nation" conference today, CDC chief Dr. Thomas Freiden said increasing
the price of unhealthy foods "would be effective" at combating the
nation's obesity problem, reports CBS News chief political consultant
Marc Ambinder.

Freiden said he was not endorsing the tax as a member of the
administration but was "just presenting the science," according to
Ambinder. He also said policies that would reduce the cost of healthy
foods would effectively bring down obesity rates.

Obesity-related health spending reaches $147 billion a year, double
what it was nearly a decade ago, according to a study published Monday
by the journal Health Affairs.

Given that evidence, the argument goes, a soda tax could plausibly pay
for health care reform both by raising revenues and bringing down the
medical expenses associated with obesity.

"It is extremely difficult in reality to make such a snapshot estimate
of something so complicated as obesity," Ambinder notes. "This is one
reason why researchers in the field tend to focus on suffering and
disparities within populations, rather than aggregate cost."

Even though the growth rates of American obesity are leveling off
overall, he points out, the rate is not slowing among African American
women, Hispanics, Native Americans, or among poorer Americans.

Those opposed to the soda tax, however, are also emphasizing the
impact it could have on poor Americans. The American Beverage
Association, which strongly opposes the tax, told the Wall Street
Journal the tax would hit poor Americans the hardest.

The association announced this month it has formed a coalition called
Americans Against Food Taxes to oppose the soda tax, the Hill
newspaper reported. Made up of 110 organizations opposed to raising
taxes on food and beverages to pay for health reform, the group is
running an advertisement that shows a family enjoying soda on a
camping trip.

Given the current state of the economy, the ad says, "this is no time
for Congress to be adding taxes on the simple pleasures we all enjoy."

Obesity the next tobacco?

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/07/obesity-next-tobacco.html

If the government pays for people's health care, there will be the
claim that people can't do what they want with their own bodies
because others will have to pay for their actions.

Government Tackles Obesity Anew -- But Can It Show Restraint?

CDC Director Thomas Frieden reportedly told the conference that a
tax on sugary drinks could help curb obesity, as he promoted measures
that decrease the availability of unhealthy food while increasing
their cost.

But he noted the political difficulty in getting such measures passed.

It's not just a political problem. For policy makers, the effort
to draw the line between healthy and unhealthy foods, healthy and
unhealthy behavior, is a challenge in consistency.

How can you tax soda but not french fries? How can you ban trans
fats while doing nothing about salt content? . . . .

States to get "significant" obesity money

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government plans to give state and
local government more money to fight obesity, including investments in
public transportation, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen
Sebelius said on Tuesday.

She said healthcare reform efforts being worked out by Congress
represented an opportunity to boost government funding in programs to
get more fruits and vegetables into school lunches and encourage
grocery stores to sell more fresh produce in poor communities. . . . .

Obama 2004: Bush Rushed Legislation Through Congress Without Allowing Time to Read, Debate...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOnYnIDX0Eg

5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/index.htm

If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find
that a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear.

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In promoting his health-care agenda, President
Obama has repeatedly reassured Americans that they can keep their
existing health plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize
will be enhanced through reform.

A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the
House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health committee,
contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't easy to
comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by
page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that
would radically change your health-care coverage.

If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your
company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer
rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if
you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you
just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom
to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and
diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose
all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills
that herald a health-care revolution.

In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive,
and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people
would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a
highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and
tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the
wrong direction.

Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under Obamacare:

1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan

The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance
through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that
would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really
compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government
will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to
offer.
0:00 /2:07Health reform and you

Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" -- and
they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every group,
from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying to get
included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair
transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.

The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs,
mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires
policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just the
starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and
Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on
recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore,
wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're required to
pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.

2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs

As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal
law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating.
Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of
community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that
all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless
of their age or medical condition.

Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan,
but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health
care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who
typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than
their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay
more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major
reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.

Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more
than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same
coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to insure is
forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would pay no more
than $5,000.

Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums
based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable
for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding
people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a
cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs.
It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers
as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents.

3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage

The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly
driven by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a
market, and health care needs more of it, not less.

Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5
million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the
accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They can
use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major medical
costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but patients pay
all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own money from
the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more cost-conscious
than customers who are reimbursed for the majority of their care.

The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in
general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients
from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical
expenses. "The government could set extremely low deductibles that
would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National Center for
Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they could do it
after the bills are passed."

4. Freedom to keep your existing plan

This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the
bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the
territory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have
ventured.

The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those
two groups are treated differently with respect to their current
plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement
Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured,
meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real
insurance. Those are the GEs (GE, Fortune 500) and Time Warners (TWX,
Fortune 500) and most other big companies.

The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are
"grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they
want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community rating and
can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive
states.

But read on.

The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can
keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified"
policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would
have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already
discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own
plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get
dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.

The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees
who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or
through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers
that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to
offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.

The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect
can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan
changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even
switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out
and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change
their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will
lose their plans in 12 months.

5. Freedom to choose your doctors

The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges
-- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get
their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is
similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the
doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care
physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic
scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a
cardiologists or orthopedists.

Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide
patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective.
The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying
care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer
outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and
killed what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost
explosion.

The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as
options to be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans
-- if they exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly
patients more than young and healthy ones. So patients would be
inclined to game the system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy
and switching to fee-for-service when they become seriously ill. "That
would kill fee-for-service in a hurry," says Goodman.

In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the
landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster
than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.

Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a
fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their
employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait a
couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's
likely that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate
health-care costs, especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to
keep the tax under control in the righteous name of job creation.

The best solution is to move to a let-freedom-ring regime of high
deductibles, no community rating, no standard benefits, and
cross-state shopping for bargains (another market-based reform that's
strictly taboo in the bills). I'll propose my own solution in another
piece soon on Fortune.com. For now, we suffer with a flawed
health-care system, but we still have our Five Freedoms. Call them the
Five Endangered Freedoms. To top of page

Nebraska Joins the State Rights Movement

http://omaha.com/article/20090727/NEWS01/707279958

LINCOLN — At least three Nebraska lawmakers want to send a message to
the federal government:

Butt out of state business.

Next year they will see if a majority of their colleagues agrees.

The senators are working on resolutions asserting Nebraska's
sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.
Congressional powers
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.

Among the powers given to Congress by the U.S. Constitution:

>>To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

>>To borrow money on the credit of the United States.

>>To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

>>To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.

>>To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

>>To establish Post Offices and Post Roads.

>>To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.

>>To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.

>>To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.

>>To provide and maintain a Navy.

>>To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Nebraska wouldn't try to secede from the union under their proposals
but would go on record objecting to federal laws that they say go
beyond constitutional authority.

"My goal here is to shine light on the fact that the federal
government is overstepping its bounds," said State Sen. Tony Fulton of
Lincoln. "We would be making a statement on behalf of Nebraska."

The tension between states' rights and federal authority has been a
repeated theme in U.S. history, starting with arguments among the
founding fathers.

The struggle turned bloody when Southern states seceded, citing
states' rights on the question of slavery, and the Civil War ensued.

Critics say the current measures amount to little more than political
posturing — passing resolutions doesn't mean that states refuse to
comply with federal law or send back federal funds that come with
mandates.

State Sen. Bill Avery of Lincoln said the proposals sound disturbingly
similar to the states' rights arguments made in defense of racial
segregation and laws blocking blacks from voting.

"The history of this movement is rife with racism in the name of
states' rights," he said. "I'm not saying that the people making the
case now are racist, but I don't think Nebraska needs to be getting in
bed with these kinds of resolutions."

Colleagues denied links to that history. Fulton, an Asian-American,
said he has no intention of promoting racism or segregation.

Interest in states' rights is spreading as the federal government has
taken over businesses, mandated driver's license security measures and
proposed a public health care program.

Seven states passed resolutions this year affirming their sovereignty,
and resolutions were introduced in 30 others. Some states have filed
lawsuits or taken legislative action to challenge federal laws.

In Iowa, State Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley of Chariton
offered a resolution this year calling on the federal government to
"cease and desist" in issuing mandates that go beyond what the 10th
Amendment allows. The body's Democratic majority has kept the
resolution alive but bottled up in committee.

The movement's rise followed the election of President Barack Obama.
Most of its supporters, though not all, can be found in conservative
camps, such as libertarian talk-show host Glenn Beck and his
conservative Web site. The states passing resolutions all voted
Republican in the 2008 presidential election.

Online petitions urge Nebraska's state lawmakers to act.

"Either states can use the Constitution to maintain the power they
have always had, or they can give it up," said Gregory Boyle of Omaha,
who started one online petition this spring.

A constitutional scholar questions the effectiveness of legislative
resolutions and legal challenges.

"This is an outlet for those who are worried that the federal
government will take over everything," said Mark Kende, director of
the Drake University Constitutional Law Center in Des Moines.

Richard Duncan, a constitutional law professor at the University of
Nebraska College of Law, said legislative resolutions send valuable
political messages even with no legal weight.

"It's kind of a nice warning that people are growing tired of the size
of the federal government," he said.

Under the 10th Amendment, states and citizens retain all powers not
specifically given to the federal government.

Sovereignty supporters argue that the federal government has
overstepped those bounds on matters such as endangered species
protection and seat belt laws. Others say the Constitution, as
interpreted by courts from the 1800s on, gives the federal government
broad authority.

Fulton and Sens. Mark Christensen of Imperial and Ken Schilz of
Ogallala are researching possible resolutions.

"I absolutely don't like where our government is going right now,"
Christensen said.

Among his complaints are the mandates attached to federal stimulus
funds and the new national health care proposals.

Fulton listed federal control of General Motors and mandates imposed
on schools under the 2001 No Child Left Behind law.

"I'm not saying that every interaction with the federal government is
bad," he said. "I'm saying that some are over the line."

Schilz's concerns include a proposal to extend the Clean Water Act to
all bodies of water.

None of the three Nebraska lawmakers is ready to advocate giving up
most federal funds to avoid the accompanying mandates, although
Christensen supported the governor's decision to reject some
unemployment stimulus money because of the strings attached.

Speaker of the Nebraska Legislature Mike Flood of Norfolk said he
wasn't sure whether he would back a resolution, though he supports
states' rights.

"Every day in the Legislature," Flood said, "it seems we deal with
issues where the federal government has its tentacles, either on the
policy or the money or both."

South Dakota's GOP whip, State Rep. Manny Steele, introduced his
state's successful resolution. Steele said change will occur if enough
states follow sovereignty measures with legal challenges to federal
authority.

Some challenges have already popped up, on both conservative and liberal issues.

Montana, for example, passed a law this year asserting that guns made,
sold and used in the state are exempt from federal laws and taxes. The
law's chief backers said they hoped it would trigger a court battle.

Arizona lawmakers put a measure on the 2010 ballot that would exempt
residents from a federal health care plan.

On the liberal front, Massachusetts cited the 10th Amendment in filing
suit against a federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages.

And six states sided with a California woman who argued to the U.S.
Supreme Court that states had the power to legalize medical marijuana.
The court ruled for the federal government in the 2005 case.

Kende questioned the states' chances of prevailing, saying the federal
government won all cases from 1937 to 1995, although its record has
been mixed since.

Courts already have upheld the practice of attaching strings to
federal funds, Duncan said.

No matter the result of the court cases, states can make a difference
through political pressure, said Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth
Amendment Center in Los Angeles. The howls that greeted a George W.
Bush-era law increasing driver's license requirements, for example,
forced the federal government to rethink that law.

"With each state," Steele said, "we gain power."

Contact the writer:

402-473-9583, martha.stoddard@owh.com

I agree with Susan Estrich on Something?

http://www.creators.com/opinion/susan-estrich/summer-in-washington.html

Summer in Washington

The stimulus program must really be succeeding in Washington, D.C. Government is hiring; people are working. In fact, if news reports are to be believed, they're working night and day. So maybe there's some sleep deprivation thrown in for good measure. And don't forget the legendary heat and humidity that made service in the nation's Capitol hazardous before the advent of air conditioning.

What other explanation could there be for my friends in Congress and the administration thinking that what the country wants them to do right now is raise taxes and spend a trillion dollars to overhaul health care, much less to push it through in a month in a 1,000-page bill being rewritten every day?

In California, where I live, unemployment is in double digits and climbing, and the state has been issuing IOUs for weeks. I'm blessed, and I'm not complaining.

But not a day goes by that someone doesn't call me, desperate for help in finding a job. And it's never been harder to help. For all intents and purposes, unless you have some very special skill to sell, there are simply no jobs. You want to wait tables or make coffee drinks? Good luck. Get in line.

The idea that somehow you're going to tax the "rich" enough to pay for quality health care for every American who doesn't have it, can't afford it or stands to lose it, not to mention for all of the undocumented aliens who receive it for free now and presumably will continue to in Obama health land, is almost laughable. It's one of those things candidates say in campaigns, ignoring the fact that it doesn't add up. But in a bill that might pass? Add a 5 percent surtax on every small business in the country that makes $250,000 or more? This is going to create jobs? What am I missing?

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office came out with a report this week concluding that the bill being written by House Democrats would increase the deficit and weaken the already weak economy.

Duh.

No one is explaining to people how the big changes in the bill will affect people who have insurance now, which happens to be the overwhelming majority of all Americans (and an even higher percentage of all voters).

Will our premiums and deductibles go up or down? Will our doctors and hospitals be better or worse off? It is simply not credible to tell me that if I like my insurance now, nothing will change. If you turn the health care delivery system on its head and start regulating, mandating and controlling the terms, don't tell me it won't change things.

Changing the tax treatment of insurance benefits changes who gets them and who pays for them. "Controlling costs" means what? Does my doctor have to see more patients? Get more approvals before ordering tests? Order less expensive tests? I don't know a single person who is willing to sacrifice, or even risk, their health care right now to an uncertain plan that they don't begin to understand — except folks in D.C.

I went to my doctor this morning and suspect I had an experience that's being repeated in doctor's offices across the country. My doctor told me how worried she is about the plan. Actually, it was much stronger than "worried."

She wasn't a big fan of HillaryCare, but from her reading, it was a carefully drafted and thought-out program compared to what's being discussed now. She's convinced that if the administration succeeds, the ripple effect will cost Democrats the House in 2010 and her patients' their access to high quality, affordable care.

I reassured her that the Democrats would never be that foolish. I hope. Maybe it's time for Congress to get out of Washington. They'll get an earful when they do.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

'You're going to destroy my presidency'

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1972220/youre_going_to_destroy_my_presidency.html?cat=9

It Really is About Him

President Barack Obama is quoted as exclaiming to an unnamed Democratic Congressman, "You're going to destroy my Presidency!" when the Congressman tried to explain to the President the trouble health care reform is in.

According to a story in the National Journal, Senator Charles Grassley, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, recounted the story:

"Grassley said he spoke with a Democratic House member last week who shared Obama's bleak reaction during a private meeting to reports that some factions of House Democrats were lining up to stall or even take down the overhaul unless leaders made major changes.

"'Let's just lay everything on the table,' Grassley said. 'A Democrat congressman last week told me after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn't going to pass if there weren't some changes made ... and the president says, 'You're going to destroy my presidency.' '"

states' rights showdown with White House over healthcare

http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1504240.html

AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry, raising the specter of a showdown with the Obama administration, suggested Thursday that he would consider invoking states’ rights protections under the 10th Amendment to resist the president’s healthcare plan, which he said would be "disastrous" for Texas.
...

7 'blue dog' Democrats get White House pressureto back health-care reform

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705318312/Obama-meets-with-Matheson.html

Utah's Rep. Jim Matheson and six fellow Democratic rebels on health-care reform were summoned to the White House Tuesday for a three-hour, arm-twisting meeting seeking to persuade them to support quick passage of Democratic proposals.

But Matheson said afterward that the group will still "take whatever time it takes to have a good bill," and will "not be rushed by a deadline." House Democratic leaders have said they want to pass reform out of committee by July 31, when the House starts its summer recess.

Fears of Interstate Handgun Laws Soon Forgotten?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/21/john-lott-concealed-carry/

Tomorrow morning the US Senate will vote on whether to allow concealed
handgun permit holders to carry handguns across state lines. The
legislation sponsored by Senator John Thune (R, SD) would only allow
reciprocity in permitting, as anybody would still be required to obey
the laws of the states that they travel in. This is the same way
driver's licenses work.

Yet, gun control advocates are predicting the worst. Sen. Frank
Lautenberg (D, NJ) warns it is an "attempt by the gun lobby to put its
radical agenda ahead of safety and security in our communities." Sen.
Kirsten Gillibrand (D, NY) calls it a "harmful measure" that will put
the public at risk. Senator Chuck Schumer (D, NY) says: "It could
reverse the dramatic success we've had in reducing crime in most all
parts of America."

The claims echo those made when concealed-handgun laws were originally
passed, when gun control advocates warned that permit holders would
lose their tempers and there would be blood in the streets.

Obviously that never happened. We now have extensive experience with
concealed-handgun permit holders. In 2007, about 5 million Americans
were permitted to carry concealed handguns across 48 states that let
citizens carry. 39 of these states have relatively liberal
right-to-carry laws that let people get permits once they pass a
criminal background check, pay a fee, and in many states receive
training

Take Florida, for example. Between Oct. 1, 1987, and March 31, 2009,
Florida issued permits to 1,480,704 people, many of whom renewed their
permits multiple times. Only 166 had their permits revoked for a
firearms-related violation - about 0.01 percent.

Similarly in Texas, in 2006, there were 258,162 active permit holders.
Out of these, one hundred forty were convicted of either a
misdemeanor or a felony, a rate of .05 percent. That is about
one-seventh the conviction rate in the general adult population, and
the convictions among permit holders tend to be for much less serious
offenses. The most frequent type of revocation, with 33 cases,
involved carrying a weapon without their license with them.

The same pattern occurs in state after state. Permit holders lose
their permits at hundredths or thousands of one percent for any type
of gun related violations, and even then they are usually for
relatively trivial offenses.

Gun control groups such as the Violence Policy Center and the Brady
Campaign have put out reports this week that attempt to show how
dangerous permit holders are. But they make several serious mistakes:
they usually include arrests and not convictions and they make
mistakes on whether the people have concealed handgun permits. Even
in the few cases where they correctly identify problems, they never
discuss the rate that permit holders violate the law.

If a permit holder fires a gun defensively and kills or wounds an
attacker, even if the shooting was completely justified, they will
almost always be arrested. A police officer who arrives on the scene
simply can't be sure what happened until an investigation is
completed. But these justified shootings are exactly why concealed
handgun permits are allowed and including them as a cost of concealed
handgun laws has the entire process backwards.

Even though the adoption of right-to-carry laws was highly
controversial in some states, the laws were so successful that no
state has ever rescinded one. Indeed, no state has even held a
legislative hearing to consider rescinding concealed-carry.

Everyone wants to keep guns away from criminals. The problem is that
law-abiding citizens are the ones most likely to obey the gun control
laws, leaving them disarmed and vulnerable and making it easier for
criminals to commit crime.

Police are extremely important in deterring crime - according to my
research, the most important factor. But the police also understand
that they almost always arrive after the crime has been committed.

There is a lot of refereed academic research on the impact that
right-to-carry laws across the country have crime rates. While a
large majority of the refereed studies by economists and
criminologists find that crime rate fall after these laws are adopted
and some claim to find no effect, no such studies find a bad effect on
crime rates, suicides or accidental deaths.

The legislation before the senate doesn't really break new ground.
Most states already recognize permits from other states: 34 states
recognize Missouri's permits, 33 for Utah, 32 for Florida, 31 Texas,
26 Ohio, and 24 Pennsylvania. And there is no evidence that these
reciprocity agreements have caused any problems.

Here is a prediction. Just like the original ruckus over passing
concealed handgun laws, the fears about allowing people to travel with
guns will soon be forgotten.

John Lott is the author of More Guns, Less Crime. John Lott's past
pieces for Fox News can be found here and here.

Another State Declaring Sovereignty

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104524

Gov. Sarah Palin has signed a joint resolution declaring Alaska's
sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution – and now 36
other states have introduced similar resolutions as part of a growing
resistance to the federal government.

Just weeks before she plans to step down from her position as Alaska
governor, Palin signed House Joint Resolution 27, sponsored by state
Rep. Mike Kelly on July 10, according to a Tenth Amendment Center
report. The resolution "claims sovereignty for the state under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all
powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government
by the Constitution of the United States."

Alaska's House passed HJR 27 by a vote of 37-0, and the Senate passed
it by a vote of 40-0.

According to the report, the joint resolution does not carry with it
the force of law, but supporters say it is a significant move toward
getting their message out to other lawmakers, the media and grassroots
movements.

Democrats 'baffled' by president's health care stance

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/21/senator-democrats-baffled-by-presidents-health-care-stance/

WASHINGTON (CNN) – As the prospects for passing health reform by the
time Congress leaves for its August recess look bleaker, Democratic
grumbling about President Obama is growing louder. One Democratic
senator tells CNN congressional Democrats are "baffled," and another
senior Democratic source tells CNN members of the president's own
party are still "frustrated" that they're not getting more specific
direction from him on health care. "We appreciate the rhetoric and his
willingness to ratchet up the pressure but what most Democrats on the
Hill are looking for is for the president to weigh in and make
decisions on outstanding issues. Instead of sending out his people and
saying the president isn't ruling anything out, members would like a
little bit of clarity on what he would support – especially on how to
pay for his health reform bill," a senior Democratic congressional
source tells CNN. The Democratic leadership had hoped the work going
on behind closed doors for months could bear fruit in time for the
president's news conference Wednesday night. But multiple Democratic
sources tell CNN that's looking very unlikely, and one senior
Democratic source tells CNN there is some frustration among Democratic
leaders that Senate negotiators have, "repeatedly missed deadlines."

Obama may have to wait for health care passage

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090722/D99JFEHO0.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - After more than a week of tirelessly pressuring
Congress to move his top domestic priority, President Barack Obama may
have to settle for a fallback strategy on health care overhaul.
...
"No one wants to tell the speaker (Nancy Pelosi) that she's moving too
fast and they damn sure don't want to tell the president," Rep.
Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., a key committee chairman, told a fellow
lawmaker as the two walked into a closed-door meeting Tuesday. The
remark was overheard by reporters.

Who's coming?

How many of us don't know what to do about the direction our country
is going? Here's something you can do. Come to the rally this
Thursday!!

What: Rally for Liberty

When: July 23, 2009 7:00 PM

Where:
Cedar Hills Heritage Park Amphitheater
4450 W Cedar Hills Drive
Cedar Hills, UT 84062

The following event is being organized by the organizers of the Cedar
Hills and Pleasant Grove 912 groups. They requested I send the
following message:

As the Federal Government continues strip us of our freedoms and
liberties, many of us are growing more and more concerned with the
future. A group of State Representatives have formed the Patrick Henry
Caucus to protect our State's Rights. On Thursday, July 23, 2009 at
the Cedar Hills Heritage Park, Carl Wimmer, co-founder of the Patrick
Henry Caucus, will be speaking to us specifically about what these
legislators are doing as well as helping us know what we can do. We
must protect the freedoms so many sacrificed so much to give us.
Please join us on July 23.

Copies of the book The 5000 Year Leap will be available to purchase for $5.00.

Learn more here:
http://www.meetup.com/utahslc/calendar/10888219/

2008 voting rate down as older whites stayed home

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99IAAT00&show_article=1

WASHINGTON (AP) - For all the attention generated by last year's
presidential race, census figures show the share of eligible voters
who actually went to the polls in November declined from 2004.

Census figures released Monday show about 63.6 percent of eligible
voters, or 131.1 million people, cast ballots last November. Although
that represented an increase of 5 million voters, the turnout was a
decrease when taking into account population growth. In 2004, the
voting rate was 63.8 percent.

According to the data, more older whites opted to stay home compared
with 2004, citing little interest in supporting either Barack Obama or
John McCain.

Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html

A series of bailouts, bank rescues and other economic lifelines could
end up costing the federal government as much as $23 trillion, the
U.S. government's watchdog over the effort says – a staggering amount
that is nearly double the nation's entire economic output for a year.

If the feds end up spending that amount, it could be more than the
federal government has spent on any single effort in American history.
...

CBO Director Elmendorf, Testimony before Senate Budget Committee

"In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of
fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory
of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the
contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal
responsibility for health care costs." — CBO Director Elmendorf,
Testimony before Senate Budget Committee

The National Debt Road Trip

Obama losing some support among nervous Dems

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j4PYGKun8FwQE1yOv3xp0SYIgM9AD99GNCF00

NEW YORK — Could it be that President Barack Obama's Midas touch is
starting to dull a bit, even among members of his own party?

Conservative House Democrats are balking at the cost and direction of
Obama's top priority, an overhaul of the nation's health care system.
A key Senate Democrat, Max Baucus of Montana, complains that Obama's
opposition to paying for it with a tax on health benefits "is not
helping us."

Another Democrat, Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma, tells his local
newspaper that Obama is too liberal and is "very unpopular" in his
district.

From his first days in office, Obama's popularity helped him pass the
landmark $787 billion stimulus package and fueled his ambitious plans
to overhaul the nation's health care system and tackle global warming.

Obama continues to be comparatively popular. But now recent national
surveys have shown a measurable drop in his job approval rating, even
among Democrats. A CBS news survey out this week had his national
approval rating at 57 percent, and his standing among Democrats down
10 percentage points since last month, from 92 percent to 82 percent.

With the economy continuing to sputter and joblessness on the rise,
many of Obama's staunchest Democratic supporters are anxious for his
agenda to start bearing fruit.

"We are eager and impatient, so you're seeing a little bit of that,"
said Chris Redfern, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party. "Elections
have results, and those in the base are the most anxious to achieve
what's promised in the election. That's why Democrats are showing some
impatience in reaching our goal."

Obama won Ohio, a key swing state, by 4 percentage points in 2008 over
Republican John McCain. But the one-time industrial powerhouse has
been hit hard by the weak economy, and a Quinnipiac University poll
released this month showed Obama with a lackluster approval rating of
49 percent.

Redfern argued that the stimulus program has begun to show tangible
results in his state and people shouldn't expect the economy to turn
around instantly.

A similar argument came from Nevada, another swing state Obama
carried. Las Vegas City Councilman Steve Ross counseled patience,
saying that voters in his state want Obama to succeed and that their
support would be solidified once they saw stimulus-driven building
projects under way.

"Generally, folks in Nevada are waiting to see the effects of the
stimulus package," Ross said. "I think the president is probably just
as impatient to get this money out in the country to employ people as
anyone."

In Missouri, which Obama narrowly lost to McCain, Democratic
strategist Steve Glorioso said hardcore base voters were as
enthusiastic as ever for Obama but that there was a sense of
disappointment about him among less committed Democrats and
independents.

"People are scared," Glorioso said. "This is the worst economic time
anyone under the age of 80 has ever experienced, and you can't
discount people being afraid. Now that we are in July, the fear is
turning to disappointment that the president hasn't fixed everything
yet. I don't know why they thought he could change everything by now,
but some did."

Glorioso said an open Senate race next year in Missouri, where
Democrat Robin Carnahan is likely to face former Republican Rep. Roy
Blunt, will be a crucial test of Obama's appeal.

"If the economy gets better and they pass a reasonable health care
bill, his popularity will be way back up and Carnahan will win,"
Glorioso said. "If none of that happens, it's a moot point."

In Michigan, where the near-collapse of the auto industry has driven
the unemployment rate to 14.1 percent, the nation's worst, the state's
Democratic chairman, Mark Brewer, said support for Obama among
Democrats has remained strong.

"People are very worried and concerned, I don't want to dispute that,"
Brewer said. "But they voted for the president in overwhelming numbers
and want to support the things he's trying to do."

Obama traveled to Michigan this week to unveil a $12 billion program
to help community colleges prepare people for jobs. There, he made an
audacious declaration.

"I love these folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly
say, 'Well, this is Obama's economy,'" the president said. "That's
fine. Give it to me!"

Redfern, the Ohio Democratic Party chairman, said he welcomed that
statement but cautioned it came with a price.

"When it's the president's economy, it's the president's trouble,"
Redfern said. "Americans are eager for the change that they voted into
office. They support him, they just want to see results sooner rather
than later."

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Sotomayor's radical base isn't happy that she is changing her beliefs for the hearings

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/17/sotomayors-liberal-critics/

Even some liberals are not enamored with Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

It turns out that many on the left are insulted that Judge Sotomayor
has run away from her radical record to appear more moderate during
her Senate confirmation hearings.

Georgetown University Law Center's liberal professor Louis Michael
Seidman couldn't constrain his anger. "I was completely disgusted by
Judge Sotomayor's testimony today," he posted on Tuesday. "If she was
not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the
Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally
unqualified ... . Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should be excused because
our official ideology about judging is so degraded that she would
sacrifice a position on the Supreme Court if she told the truth. Legal
academics who defend what she did today have no such excuse."

Dahlia Lithwick, a contributing editor at Newsweek, complained on
MSNBC Wednesday night that Democratic senators and Judge Sotomayor
"are promising us that Sotomayor is going to be tough on crime, loves
guns, is a strict constructionist, is a minimalist. It is just
bizarre." Ms. Lithwick also was very upset that Judge Sotomayor and
the Democrats had publicly "bought into [Chief Justice John G. Roberts
Jr.'s] notion that judges call balls and strikes" without introducing
their own personal opinions. . . . .

10-year-old boy successfully uses gun to defend family

http://www.wafb.com/global/story.asp?s=10741492

PORT ALLEN, LA (WAFB) - A ten-year-old boy left home alone with his
sister used his mother's gun to shoot an intruder in the face, police
said.

Late Tuesday, West Baton Rouge Parish sheriff's deputies received a
call to a Port Allen apartment complex after several shots rang out
from inside one of the apartments. "You are out here trying to work
and for someone to come and do that and invade your home is very
hard," the children's mother said. She asked to not be identified.

Deputies say Dean Favron and Roderick Porter knocked several times on
the apartment door. The two young children, a ten-year-old boy and
eight-year-old girl, stood on the other side, terrified. "He told his
sister to be quiet and seconds later, they started kicking on the door
and finally kicked the door in," said Sheriff Mike Cazes. The two
children ran to their mother's bedroom closet.

In a panic, the ten-year-old grabbed his mother's gun for protection.
"He did what I told him to do. I never told him to get the gun, but
thank God he did," she said. Once the two suspects opened the door,
threatening the kids, deputies say the boy fired a bullet into the lip
of Roderick Porter. The two men were taken to the hospital by a third
suspect, who is a 15-year-old juvenile. Once they got to the hospital,
they were later arrested. "It's just hard. I don't understand why they
would do that. I know they have little brothers and sisters and they
wouldn't want anyone to break into their house," said the mother.

Each man is held on $150,000 bond. The juvenile, was taken to a local
detention center. One of the suspects, Dean Favron, just finished
serving almost seven years in prison for aggravated assault on a Baton
Rouge police officer and two carjacking charges. He was released on
June 6th.

Both men will appear before a judge next month.

The Long-Term Budget Outlook

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=328

Today I had the opportunity to testify before the Senate Budget
Committee about CBO's most recent analysis of the long-term budget
outlook.

Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path,
because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the
economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds
long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the
aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase
rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues
increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing
budget deficits. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving,
leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment,
which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over
time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy.
The following chart shows our projection of federal debt relative to
GDP under the two scenarios we modeled.
...

Senator Coburn gets Sotomayor to reveal that she doesn't believe in a right to self defense

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/07/senator-coburn-gets-sotomayor-to-reveal.html

COBURN: Thank you.

Let me follow up with one other question. As a citizen of this
country, do you believe innately in my ability to have self-defense of
myself -- personal self-defense? Do I have a right to personal self-
defense?

SOTOMAYOR: I'm trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme
Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a
constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of one. I
could be wrong, but I can't think of one.

SOTOMAYOR: Generally, as I understand, most criminal law statutes are
passed by states. And I'm also trying to think if there's any federal
law that includes a self-defense provision or not. I just can't.

What I was attempting to explain is that the issue of self- defense is
usually defined in criminal statutes by the state's laws. And I would
think, although I haven't studied the -- all of the state's laws, I'm
intimately familiar with New York.

COBURN: But do you have an opinion, or can you give me your opinion,
of whether or not in this country I personally, as an individual
citizen, have a right to self-defense?

SOTOMAYOR: I -- as I said, I don't know.

COBURN: I'm talking about your...

SOTOMAYOR: I don't know if that legal question has been ever presented.

COBURN: I wasn't asking about the legal question. I'm asking about
your personal opinion.

SOTOMAYOR: But that is sort of an abstract question with no particular
meaning to me outside of...

COBURN: Well, I think that's what American people want to hear, Your
Honor, is they want to know. Do they have a right to personal
self-defense?

Do -- does the Second Amendment mean something under the 14th
Amendment? Does what the Constitution -- how they take the
Constitution, not how our bright legal minds but what they think is
important, is it OK to defend yourself in your home if you're under
attack?

In other words, the general theory is do I have that right? And I
understand if you don't want to answer that because it might influence
your position that you might have in a case, and that's a fine answer
with me.

But I -- those are the kind of things people would like for us to
answer and would like to know, not how you would rule or what you're
going to rule, but -- and specifically what you think about, but just
yes or no. Do we have that right? SOTOMAYOR: I know it's difficult to
deal with someone as a -- like a judge who's so sort of -- whose
thinking is so cornered by law.

COBURN: I know. It's hard.

SOTOMAYOR: Could I...

COBURN: Kind of like a doctor. I can't quit using doctor terms.

SOTOMAYOR: Exactly. That's exactly right, but let me try to address
what you're saying in the context that I can, OK, which is what I have
experience with, all right, which is New York criminal law, because I
was a former prosecutor. And I'm talking in very broad terms.

But, under New York law, if you're being threatened with eminent death
or very serious injury, you can use force to repel that, and that
would be legal. The question that would come up, and does come up
before juries and judges, is how eminent is the threat. If the threat
was in this room, "I'm going to come get you," and you go home and get
-- or I go home.

I don't want to suggest I am, by the way. Please, I'm not -- I don't
want anybody to misunderstand what I'm trying to say.

(LAUGHTER)

If I go home, get a gun, come back and shoot you, that may not be
legal under New York law because you would have alternative ways to
defend...

COBURN: You'll have lots of 'splainin' to do.

SOTOMAYOR: I'd be in a lot of trouble then.

But I couldn't do that under a definition of self-defense. And so,
that's what I was trying to explain in terms of why, in looking at
this as a judge, I'm thinking about how that question comes up and how
the answer can differ so radically, given the hypothetical facts
before you.

COBURN: Yes. You know...

SOTOMAYOR: Or not the...

Living Together First Can Spoil Marriage, Study Finds

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532600,00.html?test=latestnews

Couples who shack up before tying the knot are more likely to get
divorced than their counterparts who don't move in together until
marriage, a new study suggests.

Lehi man shoots at intruder, chases him away

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=7162597

LEHI -- Tense moments in Lehi Tuesday after police set up a perimeter
looking for a suspect in a home-invasion robbery.

The all clear has been given, but there are a lot of worried
neighbors. They saw dozens of police cars in the street and officers
with weapons and K-9s looking for a man who tried to stab someone
inside his home.

Around 2 p.m. a 23-year-old man reported to police that someone broke
inside his home near 2400 North and 800 West. He said the man tried to
stab him, so he grabbed a gun and fired a shot at the intruder and
chased him away through the back door.

Police from Lehi, American Fork and Saratoga Springs, as well as Utah
County sheriff's deputies, searched for the suspect for nearly an
hour.

The victim's sister, Annie, told KSL, "What happened, what we've been
told, is that someone tried to stop my brother. I guess my brother
shot at him and missed and scared the guy off, and he ran away."

Greg Neer, with the Lehi Police Department, said, "We do not have a
suspect in custody. We have a description of him. He's wearing ...
he's described as wearing a black tank top with cammo shorts, some
Nike running shoes and his hair was light brown, has a little bit
spiky in the front."

Neighbors were obviously alarmed to be told by police to stay inside
their homes, especially after hearing the suspect could be armed with
a knife.

In the end, no suspect was found, and right now detectives are
interviewing the victim at the police station to try and find out more
information.

Police are still unsure if the suspect was hit, and at this point
aren't giving any more information about what happened.

E-mail: spenrod@ksl.com

House bill would make health care a right

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090715/D99EO8BO0.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democratic leaders, pledging to meet the
president's goal of health care legislation before their August break,
are offering a $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make
health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans. Left to
pick up most of the tab were medical providers, employers and the
wealthy.

"We cannot allow this issue to be delayed. We cannot put it off
again," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Energy
and Commerce committee, said Tuesday. "We, quite frankly, cannot go
home for a recess unless the House and the Senate both pass bills to
reform and restructure our health care system."
...
The 1,000-page bill is unlikely to attract any Republican backing, and
business groups and the insurance industry immediately assailed it as
a job-killer.
...

FACT CHECK: Don't quote Sotomayor on that, Senator... Leahy creative rewriting of history...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99ED63G1&show_article=1

WASHINGTON (AP) - In endorsing Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor,
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy did some creative
rewriting of history. And he put quote marks around it.

...

LEAHY SAID: "You said that, quote, you 'would hope that a wise Latina
woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise
decisions.'"

THE FACTS: If that's all Sotomayor said, the quote would barely have
mattered to opponents of her nomination. The actual quote, delivered
in a 2001 speech to law students at the University of California at
Berkeley, was: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the
richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better
conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

...

Napolitano on Beck: Montana 2nd Amendment and States Rights

Stimulus III would be no more successful than I and II

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705316155/Stimulus-III-would-be-no-more-successful-than-I-and-II.html

WASHINGTON — Economic policy, which became startling when Washington began buying automobile companies, has become surreal now that disappointment with the results of the second stimulus is stirring talk about the need for a ... second stimulus. Elsewhere, it requires centuries to bleach mankind's memory; in Washington, 17 months suffice: In February 2008, President George W. Bush and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who normally were at daggers drawn, agreed that a $168 billion stimulus — this was Stimulus I — would be the "booster shot" the economy needed. Unemployment then was 4.8 percent.
...

Sotomayor backers urge reporters to probe New Haven firefighter

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/71660.html

WASHINGTON — Supporters of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor are quietly targeting the Connecticut firefighter who's at the center of Sotomayor's most controversial ruling.

On the eve of Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearing, her advocates have been urging journalists to scrutinize what one called the "troubled and litigious work history" of firefighter Frank Ricci.

This is opposition research: a constant shadow on Capitol Hill.

"The whole business of getting Supreme Court nominees through the process has become bloodsport," said Gary Rose, a government and politics professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn.

...

Time Magazine (1974): "Another Ice Age?"

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/07/time-magazine-1974-another-ice-age.html

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.
...