Utah lawmakers reimbursed for $160,000 in meals

The funny part of all of this is no one forced them to be lawmakers. Last time I checked it was a choice to be a lawmaker. So I don't quite understand how they feel they are not compensated well enough for the work they do. They knew the compensation when they ran for office. So my comment to Senator Hansen is feel free to quit if you don't like the pay.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=7739349

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Utah's 104 part-time lawmakers and their aides were reimbursed for more than $160,000 in meals over the past year, including many they never paid for.

An Associated Press review of legislative expenses found on transparent.utah.gov shows that the 29 member Senate was responsible for more than half of all meal reimbursements at $85,974, or an average of $2,964.62 per senator. The 75 member House's meal reimbursements totaled $74,248, or an average of $989.97 per representative.

The reimbursement totals include a handful of meals paid for by legislative staff.

The meal reimbursements came at a time legislators slashed jobs and eliminated programs as they trimmed the state budget by about $1 billion to accommodate declining revenues during one of the worst economic downturns in state history.

Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, said he couldn't comment on the expenditures until he's had time to examine them. Messages left with House Speaker Dave Clark, R-Santa Clara, were not immediately returned.

Citing budget pressures, Clark established a new travel policy for representatives this spring that limited lawmakers to spending $1,500 when they traveled out-of-state for national conferences, including hotel, travel registration and meals.

The Senate also cut back on out-of-state travel expenses by limiting the number of trips lawmakers could take.

In the past year, the Senate's out-of-state meal reimbursement totals were $6,704, and the House's was $4,606.

State lawmakers give themselves $54 to spend on meals every day they're called to work at the Capitol, including weekends during their annual 45-day session in which they stay home. They are also allowed to claim the per diem during special sessions and other scheduled meetings throughout the year, in addition to travel expenses.

No meal receipts are required to be reimbursed at the per diem rate. Because the per diem rate is tied to the federal rate, it will automatically go up to $61 a day on Oct. 1.

In comparison, state employees receive a maximum of $36 per day to spend on meals while traveling on official business in the state and must provide receipts before being reimbursed. There was no increase in the reimbursement rate this year.

For lawmakers who buy their own meals, it's often difficult to spend more than $10 on a meal at the Capitol cafeteria where many state workers, legislative staffers and interns buy breakfast and lunch.

But while the Legislature is in session, lawmakers rarely have to pick up the tab for their own meals.

Lobbyists spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every year sponsoring working lunches and receptions at the Capitol and taking legislators to expensive restaurants, enabling legislators to pocket the per diem money.

Rep. Neil Hansen, D-Ogden, said most lawmakers -- himself included -- don't feel guilty pocketing the per diem money because they only receive $130 a day salary for being lawmakers, and that is only paid when they're called into approved meetings. That amount is being reduced to $117 a day this year after lawmakers said they wanted to share in the budget pain with state agencies.

Hansen contends state legislators should be paid an annual salary. He says that would eliminate the need for per diem payments and allow legislators to turn down free meals from lobbyists.

"If we were to go to a salary, we would then be on the dime of the taxpayers and then all gifts should be banned because we would be on the taxpayer's money around the clock," Hansen said.

He said if legislators were paid salaries like state employees, it would be reasonable to only reimburse lawmakers for the meals they ate and at the same rate state workers can receive.

"As it is now, a lot of legislators feel we're not fairly compensated year round and that per diem rate is OK to be able to take," he said.

(Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

The Great Windfarm -vs- Lesser Prairie Chicken Fight

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/08/wind-power-meets-its-snail-darter.html

This is pretty ironic, but with everything in life there are trade-offs.

(From Bloomberg) — Iberdrola SA and E.ON AG’s turbine dreams for the windswept Texas Panhandle may be stymied by the mating rituals of the Lesser Prairie Chicken, a bird whose future could slow the pace of U.S. renewable energy growth.

Developers are scouring the sagebrush and grasslands of potential turbine sites for the ground-dwelling chickens, E.ON chief development officer Patrick Woodson said. Once plentiful in the southern high plains, the bird now has a high priority for listing under the Endangered Species Act, a move that will affect where as much as $11 billion in turbines can be built.

Federal protection for the chickens will hamper Texas’s plan to add 5,500 megawatts of wind power in the region by 2013, a 60 percent increase for the state. President Barack Obama wants to double all U.S. energy from renewable sources such as the wind and sun in three years to reduce dependence on imported oil and the greenhouse-gas emissions blamed for global warming.

“The windiest parts of some of these states seem to be the areas that still have bigger concentrations of prairie chickens,” Woodson said in an Aug. 13 interview. “We need to plan for a worst-case scenario, which would be a listing.” . . .

N.H. Court Orders Home-Schooled Girl into Public School

http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000010831.cfm

ADF asks judge to reconsider her over-reaching decision.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has asked a New Hampshire court to reconsider its decision to order a 10-year-old home-schooled girl into public school.

"Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children," said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons. "In this case, the court is illegitimately altering a method of education that the court itself admits is working."

The parents of the girl are divorced, and the mother has been home-schooling her. In the process of renegotiating the terms of a parenting plan for the girl, the guardian ad litem concluded that the girl "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that the girl's interests "would be best served by exposure to a public school setting."

Judge Lucinda V. Sadler approved the recommendation and issued the order July 14.

"The New Hampshire Supreme Court itself has specifically declared, 'Home education is an enduring American tradition and right,' " said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. "There is clearly and without question no legitimate legal basis for the court's decision, and we trust it will reconsider its conclusions."

Mike Donnelly, staff attorney at the Home School Legal Defense Association, agreed this is "not the place for the courts to be inserting themselves."

More from UCLA Study on New Deal

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
...
"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."
...
"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."
...
Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.
...

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

Quote from Roosevelt's Treasurey Secretary

"we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work....We have never made good on our promises....I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started...and an enormous debt to boot!"

Unemployment numbers:
1930 - 8.9
1931 - 15.9
1932 - 23.6
1933 - 24.9
1934 - 21.7
1935 - 20.1
1936 - 17.0
1937 - 14.3
1938 - 19.0
1939 - 17.2
1940 - 14.6
1941 - 9.9
1942 - 4.7

Romney, Clark, Smith on FDR

http://www.millennialstar.org/heber-j-grant-and-fdr/

12 April 1945: Roosevelt dies in office. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith writes, “there are some of us who have felt that it is really an act of providence.” President J. Reuben Clark Jr. quips, “The Lord gave the people of the United States four elections in order to get rid of him, that they failed to do so in these four elections, so He held an election of His own and cast one vote, and then took him away.”

Church President Heber J. Grant was vocal in his disapproval of the policies of the thirty-second President, especially after the death of his pro-Roosevelt first counselor, Anthony B. Ivins, in September 1934. He would often become upset when discussing FDR, and in one heated discussions slammed his cane on the desk of Franklin J. Murdock, shattering the glass desktop in his anti-Roosevelt fury. It comes as no surprise, then, that in the election of 1936, President Grant openly endorsed the Republican candidate for President, Alf Landon. However, he pointed out that he was speaking for himself and not for the Church…As the 1936 election drew near, an unsigned, front-page editorial in the Church-owned Deseret News accused FDR of knowingly promoting unconstitutional laws and advocating Communism…Former First Presidency member Marion G. Romney, a staunch Democrat committed to vote for Roosevelt, was deeply torn…After fasting and three hours of prayer Marion concluded that the editorial was inspired and given through the Lord’s prophet. He then reversed his political loyalties and labored to dissuade his friends from voting for Roosevelt.”

Sheehan returns to rebuke Obama

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.6e2dd44ecce699b290fad3cf2353a6ce.01&show_article=1

After spending weeks dogging George W. Bush's presidential vacations,
anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan is now trying to make life
uncomfortable for President Barack Obama.

Sheehan used to pitch a peace camp near Bush's ranch in Crawford,
Texas, becoming a symbol of the anti-war movement after her son Casey
died in action in Iraq.

On Thursday, she and a band of anti-war protesters turned up outside
the media center used by journalists covering Obama's vacation on the
well-heeled east coast resort island of Martha's Vineyard.

"The reason I am here is because ... even though the facade has
changed in Washington DC, the policies are still the same," Sheehan
told a handful of journalists, against a backdrop of her "Camp Casey"
banner.

She told US peace activists to wake up and protest Obama's escalation
of the war in Afghanistan, and complained that despite the president's
anti-war stance, US troops remained in Iraq.

"We have to realize, it is not the president who is power, it is not
the party that is in power it is the system that stays the same, no
matter who is in charge."

"We are here to make the wars unpopular again," she said.

In Obama We Trust?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/in_obama_we_trust.html

I grew up in a home where God was MIA. I don't remember religion
being mentioned except occasional references to some sort of God and a
heaven. While my family was proud of their ethnicity, they didn't
practice the religion. Aside from the requisite Bar Mitvahs, they
never set foot in a synagogue.

My parents did worship at the altar of pleasure. They loved to party;
they lived for the times they'd go out with their large, rowdy group,
and dance and drink the night away.

I'm not sure why my parents were such party animals. It was probably a
way to escape the past, the memories of which were permanently etched
on the mournful faces of my grandparents.

The past: Atrocities in Tsarist Russia. Poverty in the U.S. Tiny,
noisy tenements in New York City; ghettos of immigrants from Ireland,
Italy and Eastern Europe huddled together.

My father's dad, desperate for money during the Great Depression,
accepted a dollar to name my father after another man's deceased loved
one.

Brazen anti Semitism; recurrent chants of "dirty Jew." WWII; the
enormity of the death camps and the guilt of being safely sheltered.

My father, with a little money saved from working 12 hour days,
reinvented himself. He changed his Yiddish sounding name to something
WASP'y, and moved the family to a look alike, tract house in the
'burbs. While the lifestyle was modest compared to middle America
today, my parents were euphoric, a state that continued even into old
age.

Escapees from the ghetto, no longer targets, my parents finally felt
like true Americans. They were happy as clams in their perfect,
sanitized life of black and white TVs, a washer and dryer, frozen
vegetables, and luxuries like bottled salad dressing.

When I think about my dad, I remember how he ate. Every morsel,
whether formerly boxed or canned, was exquisitely delicious, and he
savored each bite, murmuring "Mmm, mmm," like a man just rescued from
starvation.

My parents worked hard during the week, and then weekends traveled the
cocktail party circuit, dancing the night away. They were in
perpetual adolescence, recreating their lost childhood.

Meanwhile, I was a latchkey kid before the phrase was coined. With
my only hobby being shopping, I occupied myself with my friends, the
Addams Family, the Brady Bunch, Ed Sullivan, and Patty Duke. When I
was a teen, it became mind numbing sex and drugs and rock and roll.

Weekends there was so little to do that I slept in until 1 pm.
Occasionally I would tag along on a Sunday with my best friend and her
family who went on outings. I was astonished that an entire family
went out in the car for activities like picnics and museums.

It was a flat, colorless childhood with no strong arms to guide me. I
drifted along the best I could, like a lone, unguarded leaf.

College was a blur of hook ups, hard drugs, and parties as I was
speeding headfirst into disaster. Mercifully, in my early 20's, I
found my way to a few decent boyfriends who had brains and I gained
some myself, giving up my untamed habits along the way.

I settled down with my husband, Jon, a bookish type, who came from a
family the polar opposite of mine. Jon still jokes (?) that he helped
raise me.

Often Jon would drag me to talks by other brainiacs, where I would
summarily nod off. But I like to think I absorbed something in
between snoozes.

Eventually my life took shape: around my career as a psychotherapist
and my leftist crusades to change the world. I found religion, or
perhaps it found me.

I had just turned 30, an event that had given me the willies. Perusing
a book by Buddhist teacher Chogyam Trungpa in a bookstore, I was
entranced by the novel idea that happiness is not the goal of
existence, but the byproduct of a life well lived; that the purpose of
life was truth not pleasure.

I started studying Eastern religion with a fervor, especially books by
Trungpa and Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), and even called myself a
Buddhist until I shed most of my old identities a few years ago. I
became more of a heavyweight, able to look at the big ticket items of
life -- mortality, illness, and suffering -- because I was safely
nestled in the world of the Spirit.

I remember the moment I discovered God, in my 30's, when Jon and I
were on vacation. I was reading a light novel, and he, of course, was
studying some heavy tome. When I perused it and saw it was a religious
book, I asked him, "Do you believe in God?" (Yes I know it's bizarre
that it took l0 years for the subject to come up.)

I was bowled over when Jon said, "Yes." (He was also raised secular,
and had never previously mentioned the G word.) My eyes welled up with
tears. I realized that I did too.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the factors in my life that
lured me far Left for so long; what captivated me and held me there
even with mounting evidence that the ideology was bankrupt. And why
are millions still following the Pied Piper of Chicago, even though
he's looking increasingly more corrupt and vacuous?

And I've come to this: the Left is filled to the brim with people like
me, who grew up in homes with God in permanent exile and various
adults floating in and out in hot pursuit of self fulfillment. With no
way to understand life, this realm starts looking like an unmanageable
House of Horrors. The result: people turn to someone like Obama to
engineer a whole new world.

So we have a situation today with the Left in charge, preaching their
religion which is anti-religion. Their dogmas are so harsh that they
make the Torah look like a light summer read. The Left's missionaries
are trying to tame the savages (stupid white people) just as the
missionaries of old traveled abroad to tame the savages.

But, as survivors of Jonestown learned, a religion without a
beneficent God firmly in place, is a cult, and can destroy lives.
Those spiritual teachers I admired when I was young, Osho and Trungpa?
They turned out to be major pervs. They slept with their students,
even encouraged violence against them. Both died as a result of their
depravity.

Without some type of faith, people can remain in a state of ravenous
hunger, as needy and frightened as a little lost child. They're
looking for something, but all the roads are blocked off. The only
door leading to safety has been shut in their faces by a society that
rejects the Sacred.

So the masses flock to Obama because he offers them meaning and a way
to organize a chaotic universe. People believe he's some kind of
Messiah because they're frantic for a Prophet to create a heaven on
earth.

I saw a blog where a young person posts, "I have pictures of Obama on
my wall. He gives me a reason to get out of bed in the morning."
There are no rational arguments about bailouts and taxes that will
counteract this desperation for purpose.

Our culture offers youth nothing of substance to carve out a dignified
life. In the place of spiritual and intellectual richness, we pump
them up with noxious television shows and films, texting and sexting,
addiction to Facebook, and lots of drugs. We may have created a
Generation N, for Nihilism.

And it's not just the young. Baby boomers are being dragged kicking
and screaming into old age, without any spiritual guideposts and
within a culture that fears and despises anything old. In ancient
times, elders were revered as the cultural wellspring of wisdom and
tradition.

But in most of the First World, older people are as disposable as
yesterday's trash. How unacceptable to grow old in a culture that
finds no grace, only disgrace, in wrinkles, and wants to hustle you
out the door as soon as possible.

Baby boomers are also dancing to Obama's beat, enveloped in feelings
of hope and change, holding on for dear life to their long lost youth.
But it's not the real 60's with its hard drugs, violence, and
exploitation of women, but a fantasy, frozen in time, of peace and
flower power.

I understand the draw of Obama and liberalism and changing the world
because I know what it is like when life has no other meaning. I
understand how unbearable it is when not only one's parents but God is
MIA and school is a forbidding place, and drugs only temporarily blunt
the pain.

And I know the feeling of being so depressed that you grab onto
anything -- whether it's a bottle or a relationship or a guru --
anything that eases the despair, and you won't let go, even when the
consequences keep mounting. You won't let go until you find your way
to the truth.

And I know what it's like to wake up from the fog, to shake off the
dread, and to find that I'm strong enough to walk on my own two feet
and that a Higher Power lifts and carries me when I'm too weak to
stand.

If we as a culture don't find our way back to those young and old who
are lost in space, adrift and unanchored, they will embrace false
idols. For as long as Obama is the only game in town, the only way
people can feel alive and hopeful, they'll ignore every red flag and
defend Obama until their last dying breath. They must believe in him.
The alternative is just too unbearable.

Democrats stage vandalism to Democrat Political Office?

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/08/democrats-stage-vandalism-to-democrat.html

As the story notes: "Democratic Party Officials say that they think
that the vandalism is in reaction to the heated health care debate."
Note also that a sign opposing the government health care takeover was
left on one of the windows. The reaction by Americans was
understandable. As one commentator wrote: "Even liberals who are
trying to destroy the country deserve their windows to be intact."

My guess is that the other case in Georgia with a swastika on a
Democratic Congressman's office sign is a similar case.

More on the story here from Fox News.

Waak, meanwhile, told FOXNews.com that the shattered windows were
directly in front of posters depicting President Obama and health care
reform.

"If you look at the windows, that's where the major smashes were
done," Waak said Wednesday. "To us, that indicates this is about
health care reform." . . .

Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/26/taking_liberties/entry5268079.shtml

One of the problems with any proposed law that's over 1,000 pages long
and constantly changing is that much deviltry can lie in the details.
Take the Democrats' proposal to rewrite health care policy, better
known as H.R. 3200 or by opponents as "Obamacare." (Here's our CBS
News television coverage.)

Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer
identity information, including the filing status, the modified
adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other
information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be
provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health
programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability
credits."

Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details --
there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to
the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify
"affordability credits."

Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can
obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income
prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.

Over at the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank
and presumably no fan of Obamacare), Tom Giovanetti argues that: "How
many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records?
The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most
nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say
good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it
lasted for 233 years."

I'm not as certain as Giovanetti that this represents privacy's
Armageddon. (Though I do wonder where the usual suspects like the
Electronic Privacy Information Center are. Presumably inserting limits
on information that can be disclosed -- and adding strict penalties on
misuse of the information kept on file about hundreds of millions of
Americans -- is at least as important as fretting about Facebook's
privacy policy in Canada.)

A better candidate for a future privacy crisis is the so-called
stimulus bill enacted with limited debate early this year. It mandated
the "utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the
United States by 2014," but included only limited privacy protections.

It's true that if the legislative branch chooses to create
"affordability credits," it probably makes sense to ensure they're not
abused. The goal of curbing fraud runs up against the goal of
preserving individual privacy.

If we're going to have such significant additional government
intrusion into our health care system, we will have to draw the
privacy line somewhere. Maybe the House Democrats' current bill gets
it right. Maybe it doesn't. But this vignette should be reason to be
skeptical of claims that a massive and complex bill must be enacted so
rapidly as its backers would have you believe.

The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilet

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209034/The-babies-born-hospital-corridors-Bed-shortage-forces-4-000-mothers-birth-lifts-offices-hospital-toilets.html

Thousands of women are having to give birth outside maternity wards
because of a lack of midwives and hospital beds.

The lives of mothers and babies are being put at risk as births in
locations ranging from lifts to toilets - even a caravan - went up 15
per cent last year to almost 4,000.

Health chiefs admit a lack of maternity beds is partly to blame for
the crisis, with hundreds of women in labour being turned away from
hospitals because they are full.

Latest figures show that over the past two years there were at least:

* 63 births in ambulances and 608 in transit to hospitals;
* 117 births in A&E departments, four in minor injury units and
two in medical assessment areas;
* 115 births on other hospital wards and 36 in other unspecified
areas including corridors;
* 399 in parts of maternity units other than labour beds,
including postnatal and antenatal wards and reception areas.

Additionally, overstretched maternity units shut their doors to any
more women in labour on 553 occasions last year.

Babies were born in offices, lifts, toilets and a caravan, according
to the Freedom of Information data for 2007 and 2008 from 117 out of
147 trusts which provide maternity services.

One woman gave birth in a lift while being transferred to a labour
ward from A&E while another gave birth in a corridor, said East
Cheshire NHS Trust.

Others said women had to give birth on the wards - rather than in
their own maternity room - because the delivery suites were full.

Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley, who obtained the figures, said
Labour had cut maternity beds by 2,340, or 22 per cent, since 1997. At
the same time birth rates have been rising sharply - up 20 per cent in
some areas.

Mr Lansley said: 'New mothers should not be being put through the
trauma of having to give birth in such inappropriate places.

More...

* Woman gives birth on pavement 'after being refused ambulance and
told to walk'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207151/Woman-gives-birth-pavement-refused-ambulance.html
* Father turned away from hospital with pregnant wife delivers
baby on bathroom floor - and saves his daughter's life
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1207371/Father-turned-away-hospital-pregnant-wife-delivers-baby-bathroom-floor--saves-daughters-life.html

'While some will be unavoidable emergencies, it is extremely
distressing for them and their families to be denied a labour bed
because their maternity unit is full.

'It shows the incredible waste that has taken place that mothers are
getting this sort of sub-standard treatment despite Gordon Brown's
tripling of spending on the NHS.

'Labour have let down mothers by cutting the number of maternity beds
and by shutting down maternity units.'

The NHS employs the equivalent of around 25,000 full-time midwives in
England, but the Government has promised to recruit 3,400 more.

However, the Royal College of Midwives estimates at least 5,000 more
are needed to provide the quality of service pledged in the
Government's blueprint for maternity services, Maternity Matters.

At the same time almost half of all midwives are set to retire in the
next decade.

Jon Skewes, a director at the Royal College of Midwives, said: 'The
rise in the number of births in other than a designated labour bed is
a concern. We would want to see the detail behind these figures to
look at why this is happening.

'There is no doubt that maternity services are stretched, and that
midwives are working harder and harder to provide good quality care.
However, we know the Government is putting more money into the
service.

'The key now is to make sure this money is spent by the people
controlling the purse strings at a local level.'

Care services minister Phil Hope said: 'The number of maternity beds
in the NHS reflects the number of women wanting to give birth in
hospital. Giving birth can be unpredictableand it is difficult to plan
for the exact time and place of every birth.

'Local health services have plans to ensure high quality, personal
care with greater choice over place of birth and care provided by a
named midwife.

'We recognise that some parts of the country face particular
challenges due to the rising birth rate and that is why last year we
pledged to increase funding for maternity by £330million over three
years.

'We now have more maternity staff than ever before and we have already
met our target to recruit 1,000 extra midwives by September.'
Case study: I gave birth in a car

Pregnant Linda Corbett, 33, was turned away from one hospital and gave
birth in a car as she dashed to another.

Her husband Chris, 39, delivered their daughter Iona in the back seat
while her father raced to the hospital at 70mph.

'I was really scared but I had to hold it together as I was the only
one who knew the way to the hospital,' she said.
Linda and Chris Corbett with daughter Iona who was born in the back of a car

Fighting start: Linda and Chris Corbett with daughter Iona who was
born in the back of a car

'The baby was born just as we entered the car park.' Mrs Corbett,
pictured, was due to give birth at her Brighton home in June last year
but when she phoned the Royal Sussex County Hospital after her
contractions started she was told the maternity unit was too busy to
send a midwife to her.

When she phoned back later, she was told the unit was full and she
would have to go to another hospital. Fifteen minutes later she gave
birth.

She said: 'We had such a happy ending but it could have been a disaster.'

Join Cherilyn Eagar for Lunch In Orem-Why I Oppose Bennett's Health Plan

You're invited to meet

Cherilyn Eagar

Noon-1:30 p.m., Friday, August 28, 2009

Golden Corral, Orem, Utah (University Parkway, east of UVU)

RSVP Shirley@Eagar4Senate.com

August 25, 2009

Dear Jeff,

    Last month, I reported on my trip to Washington D.C. where I spoke
to 150 policy leaders.  One gentlemen stood and asked, "Are you aware
of what your senator has done to bring socialized medicine to the
U.S.?"

    I replied, "Yes."

    I'm running for U.S. Senate in Utah to restore limited government
and to require fiscal restraint.

    In July, I wrote an article on why I oppose the Wyden-Bennett
health care plan, and my communications director sent out a news
release.  The article is on my Facebook page.

    It highlighted not only the government mandates in the bill, but
also pointed out how the federal government plans to meddle in
business owners' decisions about whether, and what kind of, insurance
benefits they should offer employees.

 Senator Bennett's bill also includes a requirement that insurance
companies cover abortion.  No one's talking about that one.

Strangely, we received absolutely no media coverage from our news
release.  Why is that?
    Because the liberal media here know that I'm the solid
conservative running in this race.  I'm the most dangerous challenge
to Washington insiders and their back-room deals.

    I'm writing to ask you one question.

    Will you support me today with a $35, $50 or $100 donation to
break through this liberal media?   You can make a secure donation
online for up to $2,400 from a personal account.  Go to
www.Eagar4Senate.com

These funds will go directly to run the ads and to pay for our strategist.

    But Can She Win?

The answer is a resounding, "Yes!"

Our incumbent senator recently ran a focus group.  It was funded by
its major endorser, the same corporation that has also endorsed and
funded Harry Reid in Nevada!  This epitomizes all that is wrong with
Washington.
In that focus group there was no mention of my candidacy until one
delegate brought it up.  "Isn't there a woman running in this race?"
Yes, there is.
 At the end of the focus group, 50% voted to support me and 25% split
the other two candidates each.
We've hired a marvelous strategist who last year won 59 out of 61
races nationwide and only takes on winnable races.  We've got a great
plan in place.
Now all we need is YOU.  With your help we can change the course of this nation.

Our incumbent has amassed a war chest from back-room deals with the
Washington "incumbent party."

I have been sounding the alarm about our senator's socialist-Lite
health care plan all across this state, on radio programs and among
all the delegates with whom I've been meeting for over six weeks now.

I've just returned from the Southern and Eastern counties of Utah
where I've explained the disaster waiting in my opponent's plans.
People are beginning to wake up now, and they are getting behind this
campaign everywhere we go.

Thankfully, the Washington D.C.-based Club for Growth is investing
$90,000 into Utah media to get this message out, but without mention
of the abortion provision.

Don't forget, with me, there would never be any question whether or
not life begins at conception and must be protected at all costs.
With me, there would never be any question whether or not the
government should own, manage and ration health care, decide who lives
or dies, much less require insurance companies to cover abortions.
It's time for principles for a change.  I need your help today. Please
donate online at www.Eagar4Senate.com

All my best,

Cherilyn Eagar
Principled. Passionate. Persuasive. Prepared.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=83838688906

Join the "Eagar Team" Today

We're setting up "Eagar Teams" all across the state and I'd like to
invite you to become a member of my personal team today.  Together we
are going to make a difference!  You can get started on our Eagar Team
by pledging a minimum of $10 or more to the Eagar for Senate campaign.
You can do that right now by going to the Eagar for Senate website
and click on "donate."

To donate now, click here.  And don't forget to forward this message
along to your friends.

All my best,

Cherilyn Eagar

P.S.

________________________________

Join me on Facebook and stay up to date on campaign events and
volunteer opportunities!

Join my email subscription list for updates on all the issues.

Follow me on Twitter!

________________________________

Paid for by Friends of Eagar for U.S. Senate

Randlyn Wilde, Treasurer  PO Box 901839 Sandy, Utah 84090

________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, simply click on the
following link: Unsubscribe
________________________________
Friends of Eagar for Senate
PO Box 901839
Sandy, Utah 84090
US

Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy.

Voters Say They Know Health Care Bill Better Than Congress

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/voters_say_they_know_health_care_bill_better_than_congress

Most voters think they understand the health care reform legislation
proposed by President Obama better than Congress does - and about as
well as the president himself.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% of
voters rate their understanding of the health care plan as good or
excellent. Only 21% say their understanding of it is poor.

By contrast, just 22% say Congress has a good or excellent
understanding of the plan. Thirty-five percent (35%) say Congress'
knowledge of the proposal is poor.

Voters give the president more credit than that. Forty-seven percent
(47%) say Obama's understanding of his own plan is good or excellent,
while 27% rate his knowledge of it as poor.

A closer look at the numbers reveals that just 11% of voters believe
that Congress understands the health care legislation better than they
do. Forty-six percent (46%) hold the opposite view and think they
understand the bill better than Congress does. Nearly as many (43%)
rate their understanding of the legislation as equal to Congress'.

Thirty percent (30%) of voters believe they understand the bill better
than the president does. Thirty-four percent (34%) say the president
understands his own health care plan better, while 36% rate their
understanding of the legislation as the same as Obama's.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our
polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or
Facebook.

Rasmussen Reports asked survey participants to rate their own
understanding of the legislation and then to rate congressional and
presidential understanding. They were not asked to compare their own
understanding with that of Congress or the president. Rather, the
ratings were compared to derive those figures. For example, suppose
someone rated their own understanding as "good" and the president's
understanding as "poor." They would be counted as believing they
understood the plan better than the president.

Younger voters are more generous than older voters in their assessment
of Congress.

Liberals tend to give Congress more credit, too. Thirty-six percent
(36%) of those on the political left say Congress has a good or
excellent understanding of the plan. Just 16% of conservatives agree
while 51% of conservatives rate congressional understanding as poor.

Most Democrats (52%) say the president understands the bill better
than they do. A plurality of Republicans (44%) hold the opposite view.
As for those not affiliated with either major party, 34% say they
understand the legislation better than Obama does, but 27% say the
president knows the bill better.

Voters are divided on the president's accusation that critics of the
plan are "bearing false witness" against it. Thirty-six percent (36%)
agree with the president, but 38% do not. Most Democrats agree, and
most Republicans don't. Unaffiliateds, by a 46% to 33% margin,
disagree with Obama on this point.

Earlier surveys have found that people overwhelmingly trust their own
economic judgment more than that of the average member of Congress. By
a two-to-one margin, voters also trust their own economic judgment
more than the president's.

Public support for the health care reform plan proposed by the
president and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low with
just 42% of voters now in favor of the plan. Opposition to the plan
has increased to 53%. Intensity remains stronger among opponents of
the plan than among its supporters.

In early August, 49% of voters said those protesting the health care
plan at congressional town hall meetings were genuinely expressing the
views of their neighbors, while 37% said they had been put up to it by
special interest groups and lobbyists.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it's
free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date
with the latest public opinion news.

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the
collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling
information.

The Rasmussen Reports Election Edge™ Premium Service offers the most
comprehensive public opinion coverage available anywhere.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an
independent pollster for more than a decade.

Even the NY Times admits that rationing fears are "not entirely irrational"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/health/policy/21seniors.html?_r=2&hpw

White House officials and Democrats in Congress say the fears of older
Americans about possible rationing of health care are based on myths
and falsehoods. But Medicare beneficiaries and insurance counselors
say the concerns are not entirely irrational.

Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a
lifeline for the elderly, on the assumption that doctors and hospitals
can be more efficient.

President Obama has sold health care legislation to Congress and the
country as a way to slow the growth of federal health spending, no
less than as a way to regulate the insurance market and cover the
uninsured.

Mr. Obama has also said Medicare and private insurers could improve
care and save money by following advice from a new federal panel of
medical experts on "what treatments work best."

The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare
the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on
end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is
about rationing, which could affect access to the most expensive
services in the final months of life.

"I don't think we will get the quality of health care with this plan
that we get now," said James T. Aronis, 79, of Wichita, Kan. . . .

Every Critic a Racist

http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/2009/08/every-critic-a-racist.html

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama's supporters promised
that his election would allow America to "transcend race." Among the
headlines:

The Boston Globe: "Obama shows an ability to transcend race"

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "Obama's success suggests we can
transcend race"

But of course that hasn't happened. Jonah Goldberg writes:

It was Obama's supporters who hinted, teased, promised, and prophesied
that Obama would help America "transcend race." But now, it is they
who shrink from their own promised land…

From Day 1, Obama's supporters have tirelessly cultivated the idea
that anything inconvenient for the first black president just might be
terribly, terribly racist.

Goldberg has plenty of examples:

For instance, actress Janeane Garofalo summed up the tea parties
thusly: "This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is
racism straight up."

In an ABC News story about how racist white militias are somehow
connected to town-hall protests, Mark Potok of the dismayingly
left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center insists Obama has "triggered
fears among fairly large numbers of white people in this country that
they are somehow losing their country."

Come on. Every president eventually is criticized by the media – even
one as "transcendent" as Obama. The President's supporters should
engage his critics with facts, not charges of racism.

Event "Cherilyn Eagar - for U.S. Senate, Buy Your Own Lunch"...

"Cherilyn Eagar - for U.S. Senate, Buy Your Own Lunch" on Friday,
August 28 at 12:00pm.

Event: Cherilyn Eagar - for U.S. Senate, Buy Your Own Lunch
      "Orem, UT - Come meet Cherilyn Eagar"
What: Informational Meeting
Host: Cherilyn Eagar for U.S. Senate - Principles for a Change
Start Time: Friday, August 28 at 12:00pm
End Time: Friday, August 28 at 1:30pm
Where: Golden Corral - Orem, Utah

Why the Tenth Amendment?

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/23/why-the-tenth-amendment/

by Michael Boldin

The following was a prepared statement for the 10th Amendment Forum in
Orlando, FL on 08-22-09

First of all, thank you for allowing me a few moments to be here with
you today – it's an honor to be able to speak with you, even if it's
from the other side of the country where I am here in Los Angeles,
California.

As the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, I'm often asked – why
the Tenth Amendment? Why do we need it? And I truly believe that's
just what people like you and I were asking back in the time when this
country was founded, too.

But, the answer isn't complex. It isn't difficult. It's simple and
it's easy to understand. The People of the day, the Founding
Generation, like so many of us today, recognized that a government of
strictly limited powers is the only one that has a chance of
protecting our liberty – and that's just the kind of government that
the People created when they ratified the Constitution so many years
ago.

They did this because they knew through their own life experience,
that a government without limits is a tyranny.

The 10th Amendment was ratified as an exclamation point on the
Constitution – and it lays out in plain English that our federal
government is to be one of limited, enumerated powers – not the nearly
unlimited, unchecked one that it has become today.

It truly is our modern line in the sand. On one side, we have those
who believe in limiting the power of politicians, and on the other are
those that trust the government to do everything.

The 10th Amendment is the safety valve that makes it clear, especially
in conjunction with the 9th, that it was The People who created the
federal government to be our agent for certain enumerated
purposes…….and nothing more.

The federal government didn't create itself - and the state
governments didn't create it either. It was The People who created
the federal government, and it is the People who are sovereign in the
American system. This couldn't have been more clearly stated than it
was in the Federalist Papers, #22. And here's the quote:

"The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE
CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow
immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate
authority."

And that wasn't Madison or Jay. It was the man who at the time was
seen as the greatest believer in centralized power, Alexander
Hamilton. So, back then, even the great centralizer recognized that
power comes from the People. And that's the way it was at the
beginning – and that's the way it is today.

So only when "We the People" actually regain that power over the
government that is supposed to be our agent – only then will we ever
see liberty and prosperity flourish in this country.

And, I believe that the path to this is not in Washington D.C. It's
not in asking federal politicians to let us exercise our rights, or
hoping that federal judges will give us permission to exercise our
rights. But instead, the path is in Tallahassee and state capitols
around the country. Courageous State legislators – like your own
Carey Baker and Scott Plakon – are calling on the Jeffersonian
tradition of nullification to resist unconstitutional federal laws.

When a state "nullifies" a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law
in question is void and inoperative, or "non-effective," within the
boundaries of that state; or, in other words, it's actually not a law
as far as that state is concerned. We see this principle being raised
in opposition to national ID cards, federal gun regulations and even
proposed national health care plans.

Starting in 2007, there was a state-level resistance to the federal
government that rose up in a way that this country hasn't seen since
the mid-19th century. Approximately two dozen states simply refused
to comply with federal law. They refused to implement the Bush era
Real ID act. And guess what? Today it's gone without even needing
congress to repeal it.

So what's the lesson? Through nullification, we can effectively
resist DC and whatever they try to shove down our throats.

This year, 26 states have seen a firearms freedom act introduced, and
already two states have already made them law – that's Montana and
Tennessee.

Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect to see
ten states introduce state constitutional amendments which would
effectively ban a forced national health care plan – and your state of
Florida is leading the way.

There's plenty of outrage these days, and that can be seen by the
activism at town hall meetings around the country. But think of it
this way - If, instead of making demands on federal politicians who
don't listen to us anyway, all this energy was instead focused on
state governments, we'd probably see 10 or 20 health nullification
bills in states already. And Obama's health care program would be
just that much closer to being dead in the water today.

The bottom line? As Jefferson wrote back in the Kentucky resolutions
of 1798 – the people of this country are not united on a principle of
unlimited submission to their general government.

So, with that, I urge you – each and every one of you here right now –
to take the ball and run with it. When people like you say "I'm not
going to wait anymore – I'm going to lead!" that's when we'll see this
great movement in support of the constitution and your liberty really
take off.

Thank you.

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

All Clunkered Out

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204884404574366664026140786.html

The Transportation Department is ending its "cash for clunkers"
program today, but the deadline shouldn't pass without recording a few
economic and political lessons. To wit, the feds can't even give away
money very well.

The $3 billion plan is being hailed in Washington as a great success
because so many Americans sought to get a $3,500 to $4,500 check
financed by other taxpayers in return for trading in their old car.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood boasts that the program has been
wildly popular and provided "a lifeline to the automobile industry,
jump starting a major sector of the economy and putting people back to
work.'' But it's hardly miraculous that some Americans would be
willing to apply for "free" money to do what they probably would have
done eventually anyway.

View Full Image
clunkers
Associated Press

A Cash For Clunkers sign hangs on an upside down automobile at a
dealership in Detroit.
clunkers
clunkers

Meanwhile, the program has proven to be an administrative fiasco, as
the central planners at Transportation vastly underestimated how many
people would apply, assigned too few people to process applications,
and had to scramble to borrow workers from the likes of the Federal
Aviation Administration to process claims. Auto dealers have
nonetheless told of having to front the money to car buyers as they
wait and wait for Uncle Sam to get around to paying them.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel quoted Brad Schlossmann last week as
saying that he had received "no payment whatsoever" on 120 clunker
deals at his Milwaukee Honda dealership. Russ Darrow, who owns 15
Wisconsin dealerships, reported having done 400 or so clunker deals
and been paid only for a few of them. That story has been repeated
from coast to coast. And now that the program is ending in a rush,
things could get worse. As buyers sprint to meet the deadline, dealers
can't be sure they'll get their paperwork in before the $3 billion
runs out. Some dealers, and even the likes of General Motors, could
have to write off clunker credits if they aren't reimbursed.

"We do not know how many deals are in the pipeline. We don't know how
many dollars are left in the program at this very moment," Ted Smith,
president of the Florida Automobile Dealers Association, told the
Associated Press this weekend. "That's fundamental to the health of
the dealerships that are participating. If you run out of money before
you run out of deals, that's not a good situation." Welcome to the
vagaries of politically motivated—and subsidized—sales. The
politicians care mainly about getting credit for the giveaway, not if
some hapless dealers are left holding worthless paper when the money
runs out.

As for helping the auto industry, the proof will be whether Mr.
LaHood's jump start to sales is sustainable. The idea that a temporary
subsidy program will launch the auto industry onto some new, higher
sales and production plane defies logic. More likely, the program will
merely have concentrated sales over a shorter period, as buyers either
postponed purchases once they learned the program was in the works, or
accelerated them to meet the subsidy deadline. The program is another
bow to the now-reigning Washington policy illusion that the key to
prosperity is force-feeding consumer spending, rather than creating
incentives for Americans to invest and take risks.

We keep hearing this is a brave new era of public confidence in the
virtues of government planning. But the lesson of cash for clunkers is
that if this government can't manage a free lunch, it can hardly be
trusted to decide whether you can have a hip replacement, and how much
it will pay for it.

More Obama administration thuggishness

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/24/government-thuggishness/

Government coercion is becoming standard operating procedure in the
nation's capital.

The White House threatened financial institutions with ruin by
selectively enforcing regulations unless they agreed to take
government bailout money. Similar threats were used to force financial
institutions to let the government own part of their stock. Those same
institutions were forced to take losses on the bonds they held in
General Motors and Chrysler. It was only a matter of time until
similar intimidating behavior was employed in the health care debate.

Democrats are unhappy that parts of the private insurance industry are
opposing the government health care takeover. The reaction is
chilling. Politico reports that by Sept. 4, "the firms are supposed to
supply the government with detailed compensation data for board
members and top executives as well as a 'table listing all
conferences, retreats, or other events held outside company facilities
from January 1, 2007, to the present that were paid for, reimbursed,
or subsidized in whole or in part by your company.' " For highly paid
employees or officers, the companies are required to provide detailed
"salary, bonus, options and pension" information.

The pharmaceutical industry -- which is putting up between $150
million and $200 million to promote government health care -- isn't
being forced to provide this information. Neither is anyone else. The
only firms being targeted for investigation are those in a sector
openly fighting reform.

The target is obvious. On July 22, Mr. Obama warned, "Right now, at
the time when everybody's getting hammered, [insurance companies are]
making record profits and premiums are going up." House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi said, "[Insurance companies] are the villains. They have been
part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their
power to stop a public option from happening."

Thuggish behavior by politicians is a valid reason not to give them
even more power over people's lives.

Obama administration using taxpayer dollars to fund health care campaign

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/08/obama-administration-using-taxpayer.html

So do the Democrats really believe in government contracting out
services? Apparently they do, though this is a surely less justifiable
use than contracting out services that the government should be doing.
Fox News has this:

The White House hired a private communications company based in
Minnesota to distribute mass e-mails, helping to shed light on how
some recipients received e-mails in support of President Obama's
health care plan without signing up for them, FOX News has learned.

The company, Govdelivery, describes itself as the world's leading
provider of government-to-citizen communication solutions and says its
e-mail service provides a fully-automated on-demand public
communication system.

It is still unknown how much taxpayer money the White House
provides to Govdelivery for its services.

The revelation comes after the White House acknowledged this week
that people were receiving unsolicited e-mails from the administration
about health care reform and suggested the problem was with
third-party groups that placed the recipients' names on the
distribution list.

Republicans quickly pounced on the news.

"This is yet another ominous chapter in the administration's rabid
campaign to jam its radical health care scheme onto an unwilling
public by any means necessary," Rep. Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan
said in a statement.

Govdelivery sent hundreds of e-mails from senior adviser David
Axelrod asking supporters to help rebut criticism of Obama's health
care plan circulating on the Internet. It also sent e-mails
highlighting Obama's speech to the Muslim world in Cairo and the
announcement of Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court nominee.

Several FOX News viewers complained they received these e-mails
even though they had never requested any communication from the White
House. . . . .

Democrat John Murtha Wasting Tax Dollars

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEi9GebWowg&feature=player_embedded

Obama to raise 10-year deficit to $9 trillion

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57K4XE20090821

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration will raise its 10-year
budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108
trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told
Reuters on Friday.

The higher deficit figure, based on updated economic data, brings the
White House budget office into line with outside estimates and gives
further fuel to President Barack Obama's opponents, who say his
spending plans are too expensive in light of budget shortfalls.

The White House took heat for sticking with its $7.108 trillion
forecast earlier this year after the Congressional Budget Office
forecast that deficits between 2010 and 2019 would total $9.1
trillion.

"The new forecasts are based on new data that reflect how severe the
economic downturn was in the late fall of last year and the winter of
this year," said the administration official, who is familiar with the
budget mid-session review that is slated to be released next week.

"Our budget projections are now in line with the spring and summer
projections that the Congressional Budget Office put out."

The White House budget office will also lower its deficit forecast for
this fiscal year, which ends September 30, to $1.58 trillion from
$1.84 trillion next week after removing $250 billion set aside for
bank bailouts.

Record-breaking deficits have raised concerns about America's ability
to finance its debt and whether the United States can maintain its
top-tier AAA credit rating.

Politically, the deficit has been an albatross for Obama, a Democrat
who is pushing forward with plans to overhaul the U.S. healthcare
industry -- an initiative that could cost up to $1 trillion over 10
years -- and other promises, including reforming education and how the
country handles energy.

DEFICIT WORRIES

Republicans have pounced on Obama for planning to spend too much when
deficits are so high, and the issue is likely to loom large in next
year's Congressional elections.

Obama, who has promised to halve the deficit by the end of his
four-year term and likes to remind constituents he inherited a $1.3
trillion deficit from former President George W. Bush, says bringing
down healthcare costs is critical to long-term deficit reduction.

Treasury markets have been worried all year about the mounting
deficit. The United States relies on large foreign buyers such as
China and Japan to cheaply finance its debt, and they may demand
higher interest rates if they begin to doubt that the government can
control its deficits.

"It's one of those underlying pieces of news that is liable to haunt
the bond market at some point in the future," said Kim Rupert,
managing director of global fixed income analysis at Action Economics
LLC in San Francisco, referring to the revised 10-year deficit
projection.

Many economists think it is unlikely the government can curtail
spending, which means taxes would have to go up to cover the rising
costs of providing retirement and healthcare benefits to aging
Americans.

Higher taxes, which could slow economic growth, are also a major
concern of voters on both sides of the political divide. Obama has
promised not to raise taxes on Americans making less than $250,000 a
year.

(Additional reporting by Butron Frierson in New York; editing by Chris Wilson)

House Resolution 615

House Resolution 615

________________________________

Once you're on the Congressman's website, scroll to the bottom and
vote to support his resolution which would require congress to sign on
to ObamaCare.

Congressman John Fleming ( Louisiana physician) has proposed an
amendment that would require congressmen and senators to take the same
healthcare plan they force on us (under proposed legislation they are
curiously exempt). Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go on
his Website and sign his petition (very simple - just first, last and
email).
I have immediately done just that at: http://fleming.house.gov/ .
Please urge as many people as you can to do the same!
If Congress forces this on the American people, the Congressmen should
have to accept the same level of health care for themselves and their
families.

________________________________

Cheryl Alward
cma2285@gmail.com

________________________________

Democrats try to silence opposition by intimidation

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/08/democrats-try-to-silence-opposition-by.html

From the Politico:

House Democrats are probing the nation's largest insurance companies for lavish spending, demanding reams of compensation data and schedules of retreats and conferences.

Letters sent to 52 insurance companies by Democratic leaders demand extensive documents for an examination of "extensive compensation and other business practices in the health insurance industry." The letters set a deadline of September 14 for the documents.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich), chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, signed the three-page letter dated Monday.

An industry source replied when asked for comment: "This is nothing more than a taxpayer-funded fishing expedition designed to silence health plans." . . . .

Shepard Smith grills Obama Press person over Obama flip flops Public Option

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/08/shepard-smith-grills-obama-press-person.html


A copy of the video can be seen here. Shepard Smith just won't let Bill Burton go when he is denying what Obama said on tape multiple times.

ObamaCare Is All About Rationing

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574358233780260914.html

Although administration officials are eager to deny it, rationing health care is central to President Barack Obama's health plan. The Obama strategy is to reduce health costs by rationing the services that we and future generations of patients will receive.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report in June explaining the Obama administration's goal of reducing projected health spending by 30% over the next two decades. That reduction would be achieved by eliminating "high cost, low-value treatments," by "implementing a set of performance measures that all providers would adopt," and by "directly targeting individual providers . . . (and other) high-end outliers."

The president has emphasized the importance of limiting services to "health care that works." To identify such care, he provided more than $1 billion in the fiscal stimulus package to jump-start Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) and to finance a federal CER advisory council to implement that idea. That could morph over time into a cost-control mechanism of the sort proposed by former Sen. Tom Daschle, Mr. Obama's original choice for White House health czar. Comparative effectiveness could become the vehicle for deciding whether each method of treatment provides enough of an improvement in health care to justify its cost.

In the British national health service, a government agency approves only those expensive treatments that add at least one Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) per £30,000 (about $49,685) of additional health-care spending. If a treatment costs more per QALY, the health service will not pay for it. The existence of such a program in the United States would not only deny lifesaving care but would also cast a pall over medical researchers who would fear that government experts might reject their discoveries as "too expensive."

One reason the Obama administration is prepared to use rationing to limit health care is to rein in the government's exploding health-care budget. Government now pays for nearly half of all health care in the U.S., primarily through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The White House predicts that the aging of the population and the current trend in health-care spending per beneficiary would cause government outlays for Medicare and Medicaid to rise to 15% of GDP by 2040 from 6% now. Paying those bills without raising taxes would require cutting other existing social spending programs and shelving the administration's plans for new government transfers and spending programs.

View Full Image

Chad Crowe

The rising cost of medical treatments would not be such a large burden on future budgets if the government reduced its share in the financing of health services. Raising the existing Medicare and Medicaid deductibles and coinsurance would slow the growth of these programs without resorting to rationing. Physicians and their patients would continue to decide which tests and other services they believe are worth the cost.

There is, of course, no reason why limiting outlays on Medicare and Medicaid requires cutting health services for the rest of the population. The idea that they must be cut in parallel is just an example of misplaced medical egalitarianism.

But budget considerations aside, health-economics experts agree that private health spending is too high because our tax rules lead to the wrong kind of insurance. Under existing law, employer payments for health insurance are deductible by the employer but are not included in the taxable income of the employee. While an extra $100 paid to someone who earns $45,000 a year will provide only about $60 of after-tax spendable cash, the employer could instead use that $100 to pay $100 of health-insurance premiums for that same individual. It is therefore not surprising that employers and employees have opted for very generous health insurance with very low copayment rates.

Since a typical 20% copayment rate means that an extra dollar of health services costs the patient only 20 cents at the time of care, patients and their doctors opt for excessive tests and other inappropriately expensive forms of care. The evidence on health-care demand implies that the current tax rules raise private health-care spending by as much as 35%.

The best solution to this problem of private overconsumption of health services would be to eliminate the tax rule that is causing the excessive insurance and the resulting rise in health spending. Alternatively, Congress could strengthen the incentives in the existing law for health savings accounts with high insurance copayments. Either way, the result would be more cost-conscious behavior that would lower health-care spending.

But unlike reductions in care achieved by government rationing, individuals with different preferences about health and about risk could buy the care that best suits their preferences. While we all want better health, the different choices that people make about such things as smoking, weight and exercise show that there are substantial differences in the priority that different people attach to health.

Although there has been some talk in Congress about limiting the current health-insurance exclusion, the administration has not supported the idea. The unions are particularly vehement in their opposition to any reduction in the tax subsidy for health insurance, since they regard their ability to negotiate comprehensive health insurance for their members as a major part of their raison d'être.

If changing the tax rule that leads to excessive health insurance is not going to happen, the relevant political choice is between government rationing and continued high levels of health-care spending. Rationing is bad policy. It forces individuals with different preferences to accept the same care. It also imposes an arbitrary cap on the future growth of spending instead of letting it evolve in response to changes in technology, tastes and income. In my judgment, rationing would be much worse than excessive care.

Those who worry about too much health care cite the Congressional Budget Office's prediction that health-care spending could rise to 30% of GDP in 2035 from 16% now. But during that 25-year period, GDP will rise to about $24 trillion from $14 trillion, implying that the GDP not spent on health will rise to $17 billion in 2035 from $12 billion now. So even if nothing else comes along to slow the growth of health spending during the next 25 years, there would still be a nearly 50% rise in income to spend on other things.

Like virtually every economist I know, I believe the right approach to limiting health spending is by reforming the tax rules. But if that is not going to happen, let's not destroy the high quality of the best of American health care by government rationing and misplaced egalitarianism.

Obama: 'We are God's partners in matters of life and death'

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0809/We_are_Gods_partners_in_matters_of_life_and_death.html?showall

A reader points out that President Obama's call with the rabbis today — as recorded in Rabbi Jack Moline's and other clerics' Twitter feeds — freights health care reform with a great deal of religious meaning, and veers into the blend of policy and faith that outraged liberals in the last administration.

"We are God's partners in matters of life and death," Obama said, according to Moline (paging Sarah Palin...), quoting from the Rosh Hashanah prayer that says that in the holiday period, it is decided "who shall live and who shall die."

The president ended the call by wishing the rabbis "shanah tovah," or happy new year — in reference to the High Holidays a month from now.

Drop in world temperatures fuels global warming debate

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/74019.html

WASHINGTON — Has Earth's fever broken?

Official government measurements show that the world's temperature has cooled a bit since reaching its most recent peak in 1998.

That's given global warming skeptics new ammunition to attack the prevailing theory of climate change. The skeptics argue that the current stretch of slightly cooler temperatures means that costly measures to limit carbon dioxide emissions are ill-founded and unnecessary.

Proposals to combat global warming are "crazy" and will "destroy more than a million good American jobs and increase the average family's annual energy bill by at least $1,500 a year," the Heartland Institute, a conservative research organization based in Chicago, declared in full-page newspaper ads earlier this summer. "High levels of carbon dioxide actually benefit wildlife and human health," the ads asserted.

Many scientists agree, however, that hotter times are ahead. A decade of level or slightly lower temperatures is only a temporary dip to be expected as a result of natural, short-term variations in the enormously complex climate system, they say.

"The preponderance of evidence is that global warming will resume," Nicholas Bond, a meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, said in an e-mail.

"Natural variability can account for the slowing of the global mean temperature rise we have seen," said Jeff Knight, a climate expert at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, England.

According to data from the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Ala., the global high temperature in 1998 was 0.76 degrees Celsius (1.37 degrees Fahrenheit) above the average for the previous 20 years.

So far this year, the high has been 0.42 degrees Celsius (0.76 degrees Fahrenheit), above the 20-year average, clearly cooler than before.

However, scientists say the skeptics' argument is misleading.

"It's entirely possible to have a period as long as a decade or two of cooling superimposed on the long-term warming trend," said David Easterling, chief of scientific services at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

"These short term fluctuations are statistically insignificant (and) entirely due to natural internal variability," Easterling said in an essay published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in April. "It's easy to 'cherry pick' a period to reinforce a point of view."

Climate experts say the 1998 record was partly caused by El Nino, a periodic warming of tropical Pacific Ocean waters that affects the climate worldwide.

"The temperature peak in 1998 to a large extent can be attributed to the very strong El Nino event of 1997-98," Bond said. "Temperatures for the globe as a whole tend to be higher during El Nino, and particularly events as intense as that one."

El Nino is returning this summer after a four-year absence and is expected to hang around until late next year.

"If El Nino continues to strengthen as projected, expect more (high temperature) records to fall," said Thomas Karl, who's the director of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville.

"At least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year currently on record," predicted Jeff Knight, a climate variability expert at the Hadley Centre in England.

John Christy, the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who often sides with the skeptics, agreed that the recent cooling won't last.

"The atmosphere is just now feeling the bump in tropical Pacific temperatures related to El Nino," Christy said in an e-mail. As a result, July experienced "the largest one-month jump in our 31-year record of global satellite temperatures. We should see a warmer 2009-2010 due to El Nino."

Christy added, however: "Our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous, and our policy makers need to know that . . . We really don't know much about what causes multi-year changes like this."

In addition to newspaper ads, the Heartland Institute sponsors conferences, books, papers, videos and Web sites arguing its case against the global warming threat.

The skeptics include scientists such as Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who thinks that climate science is too uncertain to justify drastic measures to control CO2. He calls the case for action against global warming "silly" and "grotesque."

Others go further. For example, Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University in Bellingham, thinks the world is in a 30-year cooling phase.

"The most recent global warming that began in 1977 is over, and the Earth has entered a new phase of global cooling," Easterbrook said in a talk to the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting in San Francisco in December.

Government scientists strongly disagree. "Claims that global warming is not occurring . . . ignore this natural variability and are misleading," said NOAA's Easterling.

In reality, global warming "never ceased," said Karl, the climate data center director.

Fighting false health care claims, Obama repeats one of his own

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/74035.html

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama participated in a scripted online discussion of his health care overhaul with a friendly audience of religious voters and pastors Wednesday. It ended with him bemoaning those who bear "false witness" against his plans — and then making a claim of his own that's been widely shown to be false.

"There's been a lot of misinformation," Obama said, complaining about people who are "bearing false witness."

He said the first thing he wanted to correct was the idea that the proposed overhaul would force some people into different health care plans. "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan," he said, repeating one of his stock lines.

That's not true, however, according to FactCheck.org, an independent truth squad run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

"He can't make that promise to everyone," concluded FactCheck's analysis, one of several that point out that the Democrats' health care plan could lead to employers switching plans, and thus forcing their employees into different plans and perhaps to different doctors.

"Under the House bill," FactCheck said, "some employers might have to modify plans after a five-year grace period if they don't meet minimum benefits standards.

"Furthermore, some firms are likely to buy different coverage for their workers than they have now, or simply drop coverage and pay a penalty instead, leaving workers to buy their own private coverage or go on a new federal insurance plan."

Obama tried anew to knock down false assertions that the overhaul would create "death panels" that would euthanize old people. "That is just an extraordinary lie," Obama said.

He also noted that the proposed plan would ban financing health care for illegal immigrants, not provide care for them, as some have charged.

He also said that there would be no federal financing of abortion under the plans, a charge made again Wednesday by the Republican National Committee.

"These are all fabrications," Obama said.

He said he'd need help from the people on the call to correct the record, and prod Congress to pass a health care plan.

"I'm going to need the help of all of you," he said. "Knock on doors, speak the truth."

The 40-minute program, on blogtalkradio.com, featured testimonials about the need for health care changes from pastors and members of various churches, mosques, synagogues and temples around the country, all of them apparently supporters of Obama's proposals.

"I don't want my parents to die," said Karla Carranza, a 15-year-old who attends Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Denver. She said her parents are going without needed care because they lost their health insurance.

Many called for a health care overhaul in moral terms.

"We are in danger of losing the moral core of this debate," said the Rev. Jim Wallis, the president of Sojourners, a liberal Christian group. "This call shows how united the faith community is . . . . We are calling on people of faith to make our political representatives understand that the faith community will be satisfied with nothing less than safe, accessible health care for all Americans."

Midway through the program, Melody Barnes, the White House director of domestic policy, jumped in. She tried to remove any doubts that Obama wants the overhaul to include the option of a federal government insurance program for many Americans. "There have been a lot of questions about . . . whether the president is still committed to that," she said. "The answer is yes."

The program was sponsored by churches and religious groups including the National Baptist Convention, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Methodist Church and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/08/20/kennedy_looking_ahead_urges_a_quick_filling_of_senate_seat/

Funny since he pushed for the change in the law to have a special election when a senate seat opens up so Romney couldn't fill it....but now is trying to change it again so they won't have to wait for a special election.

White House disables e-tip box

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26188.html

Following a furor over how the data would be used, the White House has shut down an electronic tip box — flag@whitehouse.gov — that was set up to receive information on “fishy” claims about President Barack Obama’s health plan.

E-mails to that address now bounce back with the message: “The e-mail address you just sent a message to is no longer in service. We are now accepting your feedback about health insurance reform via http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck.”

The “flag” service was introduced Aug. 4, with a White House blog post saying: “There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said at a briefing shortly after the service launched: “We're not collecting names from those e-mails. … All we're asking people to do is if they're confused about what health care reform is going to mean to them, we're happy to help clear that up for you. Nobody is keeping anybody's names.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, wrote a letter to Obama raising privacy concerns about what the senator called an “Obama monitoring program.”

“I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward e-mails critical of his policies to the White House,” Cornyn wrote. “So I urge you to cease this program immediately.”

In a later statement, Cornyn said: “Of course the White House is collecting names. … It is inevitable. Anyone with access to the flag@whitehouse.gov account has access to the names and email addresses that are collected in that account. … How are they purging names and e-mail addresses from this account to protect privacy?”

Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States, Says Gallup Poll

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52602

(CNSNews.com) - Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.

At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.

In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.

Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”

Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.

During Republican President George W. Bush’s second term, the number of self-identified conservatives as measured by Gallup dropped, riding at a low of 37% as recently as last year.

According to new data released by Gallup on Friday, conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states--including President Obama’s home state of Illinois--even though Democrats have a significant advantage over Republicans in party identification in 30 states.

“In fact, while all 50 states are, to some degree, more conservative than liberal (with the conservative advantage ranging from 1 to 34 points), Gallup's 2009 party ID results indicate that Democrats have significant party ID advantages in 30 states and Republicans in only 4,” said an analysis of the survey results published by Gallup.

“Despite the Democratic Party's political strength-- seen in its majority representation in Congress and in state houses across the country--more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal,” said Gallup’s analysis.

“While Gallup polling has found this to be true at the national level over many years, and spanning recent Republican as well as Democratic presidential administrations, the present analysis confirms that the pattern also largely holds at the state level,” said Gallup. “Conservatives outnumber liberals by statistically significant margins in 47 of the 50 states, with the two groups statistically tied in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.”

Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii are the most liberal states, even though conservatives marginally outrank liberals even there. In Massachusetts, according to Gallup, 30% say they are conservative and 29% say they are liberal, a difference that falls within the margin of error for the state. In Vermont, 29% say they are conservative and 28% say they are liberal, which also falls within the survey’s margin of error for the state. In Hawaii, 29% say they are conservative and 24% say they are liberal, which falls within the margin of error for that state.

In one non-state jurisdiction covered by the survey, liberals did outnumber conservatives. That was Washington, D.C., where 37% said they were liberal, 35% said they were moderate and 23% said they were conservative.

Even in New York and New Jersey, conservatives outnumber liberals by 6 percentage points, according to Gallup. In those states, 32% say they are conservative and 26% say they are liberal. In Connecticut, conservatives outnumber liberals by 7 points, 31% to 24%.

Alabama is the state that comes closest to a conservative majority. In that state, according to Gallup, 49% say they are conservative and 15% say they are liberal.

In President Obama’s home state of Illinois, conservatives outnumber liberals, 35% to 23%.

Gallup's results were derived from interviewing 160,236 American adults between Jan. 2, 2009 and June 30, 2009.

Even though conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states, in 21 of these states self-identified moderates outnumber conservatives, and in 4 states the percentage saying they are conservative and the percentage saying they are moderate is exactly the same.

The two states with the highest percentage of self-identified moderates are Hawaii and Rhode Island, where 43% say they are moderate.

For a ranking of all 50 states by the advantage that self-identified conservatives have over self-identified liberals see the Gallup analysis here.

Canadian Health Care System 'is imploding'

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw

SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.

"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."

The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred. He will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France.

His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."

In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.

He has also said the Canadian system could be restructured to focus on patients if hospitals and other health-care institutions received funding based on the patients they treat, instead of an annual, lump-sum budget. This "activity-based funding" would be an incentive to provide more efficient care, he has said.

Doig says she doesn't know what a proposed "blueprint" toward patient-centred care might look like when the meeting wraps up Wednesday. She'd like to emerge with clear directions about where the association should focus efforts to direct change over the next few years. She also wants to see short-term, medium-term and long-term goals laid out.

"A short-term achievable goal would be to accelerate the process of getting electronic medical records into physicians' offices," she said. "That's one I think ought to be a priority and ought to be achievable."

A long-term goal would be getting health systems "talking to each other," so information can be quickly shared to help patients.

Doig, who has had a full-time family practice in Saskatoon for 30 years, acknowledges that when physicians have talked about changing the health-care system in the past, they've been accused of wanting an American-style structure. She insists that's not the case.

"It's not about choosing between an American system or a Canadian system," said Doig. "The whole thing is about looking at what other people do."

"That's called looking at the evidence, looking at how care is delivered and how care is paid for all around us (and) then saying 'Well, OK, that's good information. How do we make all of that work in the Canadian context? What do the Canadian people want?' "

Doig says there are some "very good things" about Canada's health-care system, but she points out that many people have stories about times when things didn't go well for them or their family.

"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig.

"They have to look at the evidence that's being presented and will be presented at (the meeting) and realize what Canada's doctors are trying to tell you, that you can get better care than what you're getting and we all have to participate in the discussion around how do we do that and of course how do we pay for it."

Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.