Monday, September 28, 2009

Support for Health Care Plan Hits New Low

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform
proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That's down
two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet
measured.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56%
are opposed to the plan.

Senior citizens are less supportive of the plan than younger voters.
In the latest survey, just 33% of seniors favor the plan while 59% are
opposed. The intensity gap among seniors is significant. Only 16% of
the over-65 crowd Strongly Favors the legislation while 46% are
Strongly Opposed.

For the first time ever, a slight plurality of voters now express
doubt that the legislation will become law this year. Forty-six
percent (46%) say passage is likely while 47% say it is not. Those
figures include 18% who say passage is Very Likely and 15% who say it
is Not at All Likely. Sixty percent (60%) are less certain.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Democrats say the plan is at least
somewhat likely to become law. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans
disagree. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 34% say
passage is at least somewhat likely while 58% say it is not.

(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.

The overall picture remains one of stability. Today's record low
support for the plan of 41% is just a point lower than the results
found twice before. With the exception of a slight bounce earlier this
month following the president's nationally televised speech to
Congress to promote the plan, support for it has remained in the
low-to-mid 40s since early July. During that same time period,
opposition has generally stayed in the low-to-mid 50s.

Intensity has been with the opposition from the beginning of the
public debate. Currently, among all voters 23% Strongly Favor the
legislative effort and 43% are Strongly Opposed.

Also, from the beginning of the debate, the has been a huge partisan
divide. Currently 75% of Democrats favor the plan. Seventy-nine
percent (79%) of Republicans are opposed, as are 72% of the
unaffiliated.

Rasmussen Reports will continue to track support for the plan on a
weekly basis (see day-by-day numbers).

As Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, wrote recently in
the Wall Street Journal: "The most important fundamental is that 68%
of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate good or
excellent … Most of these voters approach the health care reform
debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain." A Rasmussen
video report shows that 53% of those with insurance believe it's
likely they would have to change coverage if the congressional plan
becomes law.

Despite strong efforts by the White House to counter that belief,
including many comments by the president himself, there has been no
change for months in the number who fear they will be forced out of
their current coverage.

Polling released last week shows that 58% of uninsured voters favor
passage of the health care plan. However, 35% of the uninsured are
opposed. The divide fell largely along partisan and ideological
grounds.

If the plan passes, 24% of voters say the quality of care will get
better, and 55% say it will get worse. In August, the numbers were 23%
better and 50% worse.

Fifty-four percent (54%) say passage of the plan will make the cost of
health care go up while 23% say it will make costs go down. In August,
52% thought the plan would lead to higher costs, and just 17% thought
it would achieve the stated goal of lowering costs.

While many credit or blame the town hall protests for building
opposition to the plan, it appears they were simply a reflection of
public opinion rather than a creator of it. This sense is confirmed by
the fact that Obama's approval ratings fell more in June and July
before stabilizing in August.

One thing that did change during the month of August is that public
perception of the protesters improved. Most voters came to believe
that the purpose of the town hall meetings was for members of Congress
to listen rather than speak. That's partly because just 22% believe
Congress has a good understanding of the legislation.

While some Democrats have charged that opposition to the president's
plan is based upon racism, just 12% of voters agree.

Voters overwhelmingly believe that every American should be able to
buy the same health insurance plan that Congress has. Most favor
limits on jury awards for medical malpractice claims and think that
tort reform will significantly reduce the cost of health care.
Forty-eight percent (48%) want a prohibition on abortion in any
government subsidized program while 13% want a mandate requiring
abortion coverage.

The health care debate has produced a difficult political environment
for Democrats. Several incumbent Democratic senators currently are
behind in their reelection bids including Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid in Nevada, Chris Dodd in Connecticut and Michael Bennet in
Colorado. Republicans appear to have a better shot than expected at
hanging on to the New Hampshire Senate seat, and GOP incumbents lead
in both North Carolina and Iowa. The races for soon-to-be-vacant
Senate seats in Missouri and Ohio are neck-and-neck, and longtime
incumbent Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer polls under 50% against two
potential 2010 challengers in California. Appointed Democratic Senator
Kirsten Gillibrand holds a very narrow lead over former Governor
George Pataki in a hypothetical match-up for New York State's 2010
Senate race.

Democrats also trail in the 2009 governor's races in New Jersey and
Virginia. Incumbent Democratic governors in Iowa and Ohio face tough
challenges next year. In New York's gubernatorial race, the fate of
the Democrats appears to depend on which of two nominees they choose.

The health care debate has become one focal point for voters
frustrated by a string of government actions. Voters overwhelmingly
opposed the bailout of the financial industry and the bailout and
takeover of General Motors.

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.

John Stossel: "The Case for School Vouchers"

Since we were talking about this recently...

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-stossel-walter-williams-and-thomas.html

Safe School Czar

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/28/at-the-presidents-pleasure/

A teacher was told by a 15-year-old high school sophomore that he was
having homosexual sex with an "older man." At the very least,
statutory rape occurred. Fox News reported that the teacher violated a
state law requiring that he report the abuse. That former teacher,
Kevin Jennings, is President Obama's "safe school czar." It's getting
hard to keep track of all of this president's problematic
appointments. Clearly, the process for vetting White House employees
has broken down.

In this one case in which Mr. Jennings had a real chance to protect a
young boy from a sexual predator, he not only failed to do what the
law required but actually encouraged the relationship.

According to Mr. Jennings' own description in a new audiotape
discovered by Fox News, the 15-year-old boy met the "older man" in a
"bus station bathroom" and was taken to the older man's home that
night. When some details about the case became public, Mr. Jennings
threatened to sue another teacher who called his failure to report the
statutory rape "unethical." Mr. Jennings' defenders asserted that
there was no evidence that he was aware the student had sex with the
older man.

However, the new audiotape contradicts this claim. In 2000, Mr.
Jennings gave a talk to the Iowa chapter of the Gay, Lesbian and
Straight Education Network, an advocacy group that promotes
homosexuality in schools. On the tape, Mr. Jennings recollected that
he told the student to make sure "to use a condom" when he was with
the older man. That he actively encouraged the relationship is
reinforced by Mr. Jennings' own description in his 1994 book, "One
Teacher in 10." In that account, the teacher boasts how he allayed the
student's concerns about the relationship to such a degree that the
15-year-old "left my office with a smile on his face that I would see
every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he
graduated."

Mr. Jennings' denials about these events reveal a lack of remorse. He
has not admitted that he made mistakes in this case, and he now
refuses to answer any questions about the scandal. Don't forget, this
is a presidential appointee we're talking about. Mr. Obama should make
clear what his standards are for public servants serving at the
pleasure of the president. Encouraging and covering up man-boy sexual
activity are serious offenses. The White House should force Mr.
Jennings to come clean.

Mr. Jennings has made extremely radical statements promoting
homosexuality in schools and about his utter contempt for religion
that render him unsuitable for a prestigious White House appointment.
His job in the Obama administration is to ensure student safety, and
this scandal directly calls into question his ability to perform that
job. Mr. Jennings and Obama administration officials refuse to answer
any questions about this newly discovered evidence. A lot of Americans
want answers about this guy and how he was approved for a job in the
White House.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html?showall

Ensign receives handwritten confirmation

This doesn't happen often enough.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from
Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the
penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health
insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a
year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead.
He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the markup.

Utah Governor announced use of $8 million in federal stimulus funds

http://realestateblog.slcagents.com/2009/09/11/utah-homerun-grant-part-duex/


Utah Homerun Grant Part Duex

Just a quick note to let you know that the Utah Governor recently
announced they will use $8 million in federal stimulus funds to
reintroduce the Homerun Grant.

The official statement said that the state will offer $4,000 grants to
the first 2,000 new home buyers.

The program comes on the heels of one started by former Gov. Jon
Huntsman, who used $10 million in stimulus funds offer $6,000 grants.
These grants were used in less than 12 weeks, so if you are interested
in taking advantage of this offer you had better hurry.

There is one major difference between the original grant and this one
(apart from the amount). The original grant could only be issued for
homes that were ready for occupancy, while the new one can issued for
homes which have been contracted for construction, or partially
finished and contracted for completion. This changes the focus of the
grant from getting rid of new home inventory to building new homes.

Utah gov supports stricter concealed gun permits

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=8054891

Utah gov supports stricter concealed gun permits
September 25th, 2009 @ 10:31am

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Utah Gov. Gary Herbert says he doesn't want his
state to be a national clearinghouse for concealed weapons permits.

In the fiscal year that ended in June, just over 50 percent of the
state's concealed weapons applicants were from outside Utah.

Utah's permit is considered one of the most valuable in the country
because it is accepted in nearly three dozen states.

Herbert told reporters during a taping of his monthly KUED news
conference that will air Friday night he's concerned about the state's
ability to track permit holders outside of Utah.

In Utah, law enforcement officials continually check criminal records
against a list of permit holders, but they don't have the ability to
do the same thing with every other state.

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

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Lawmakers Ask for 72 Hours to Read All Legislation...

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/23/house-lawmakers-aim-push-back-against-hasty-votes//print/

The Washington Times
Originally published 11:18 a.m., September 23, 2009, updated 01:23
p.m., September 23, 2009
Dems block GOP demand for more time

Jennifer Haberkorn (Contact) and Kara Rowland (Contact)

Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday turned back a
Republican amendment to wait 72 hours and require a full cost estimate
before the final committee vote on the health care reform bill.

It was the committee's first vote out of more than 500 amendments
awaiting them, in what has already been a contentious mark-up session.

The amendment would have delayed a vote on the final bill for about
two weeks to allow the Congressional Budget Office to complete its
final analysis on the cost and implications of the legislation.

Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln was the only Democrat to vote with
Republicans for the amendment, further signaling that she may be an
attractive swing vote for Republicans.

Instead, the panel passed an alternative amendment that would require
the committee to post the full bill, in "conceptual" instead of legal
language, as well as as a CBO cost estimate.

Separately, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers on Wednesday
announced their own effort to force Democratic leaders to give members
of Congress -- and the public -- 72 hours to review legislation before
any bill is brought to the floor for a vote.

The measure, sponsored by Rep. Brian Baird, Washington Democrat, and
Republican Reps. John Culberson of Texas and Greg Walden of Oregon,
would require House leaders to post all non-emergency legislation
online, in its final form, three days before a vote.

The lawmakers have begun circulating a discharge petition that would
force House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to hold a vote on their bill, which
has been stuck in committee for months.

GOP lawmakers in particular have hammered Mrs. Pelosi and other
Democratic leaders for rushing long, complex bills through the House.

"The American people are angry that Speaker Pelosi didn't allow the
public and their elected representatives to read the trillion-dollar
'stimulus' bill or the national energy tax before they were rammed
through the House," Minority Leader John Boehner, Ohio Republican,
said Wednesday. "Congress can, and must, do better."

In the Senate Finance Committee debate, Democrats argued that the
amendment, offered by Sen. Jim Bunning, Kentucky Republican, was
merely an attempt to stall President Obama's top legislative priority.

"This is fundamentally a delay tactic," said Sen. John F. Kerry,
Massachusetts Democrat.

Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, promised committee members that
they'd have a preliminary analysis of the bill before they vote.

Republicans said the full analysis, which details the cost and
implications of the bill, is necessary to inform their vote.

"It's what [the public] expects us to do anyway -- read a bill before
you vote on it," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley, ranking Republican on
the panel.

Further complicating the process is the fact that the Finance
Committee works on "conceptual language" -- plain English explanations
that are later turned into legislative text.

The committee has always worked with conceptual language with the
understanding that if a lawmaker finds a discrepancy later, the
chairman can change the text to reflect what was intended.

Democrats argued that the conceptual language made it easier to
understand what the committee is voting on, but Republicans said that
the legislative details are significant.

Rushed floor votes on the stimulus bill and the cap-and-trade energy
bill -- both of which totaled more than 1,000 pages -- have fueled
calls from the public that lawmakers read bills before voting on them.
The House resolution is supported by several public-interest groups,
including the Sunlight Foundation, which point out that hasty votes
can result in unintended consequences, such as the provision tucked
into the stimulus bill that had the effect of authorizing executives
of bailed-out insurance giant AIG to receive retroactive bonuses.

Earlier this summer, Mrs. Pelosi told a reporter she would allow a
48-hour waiting period prior to bringing health care legislation up
for a vote.

The discharge petition requires 218 signatures to force a vote on the
bill, which has 98 co-sponsors. There are currently 256 Democrats and
177 Republicans in the House.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Eager: Where in the Constitution Does It Say "Provide for the General Welfare?"

Where in the Constitution Does It Say "Provide for the General Welfare?"
Share
Today at 9:40am
Is there no one in the U.S. Senate who understands the issue is not
health care, it's who's going to control our health care - government
or you and I - We the People?

Will someone please explain to me where in the Constitution it says
"provide for the general welfare?"

Where, in any of our Founders' notes on the Constitution, does it say
that the Federal government should mandate wage and price controls on
the free market?

Where does it say that the Federal government should require all
employers and all Americans to participate in this Federally mandated
plan which will impose up to 25% tax increase?

Where does it say that the Federal government should tell insurance
companies it must provide abortion services options? Where does it say
that the Federal government must provide grants to set up
comprehensive school-based clinics where health professionals will
provide contraceptives and abortion counseling without parental
consent?

We all know how Lincoln began a precedent of Federal control in an
effort to keep the union from breaking apart during the civil war. We
know how Wilson grabbed an unprecedented amount of executive power to
"make the world safe for...democracy" (even though we aren't a
democracy) by setting up a system of executive-appointed czars.

And don't attempt to explain it away with Wickard-Filburn folly. We
know how FDR used the unemployment crisis and his manipulation of
farmers to prohibit them from growing a surplus of grain and actually
store it for a rainy day (what a concept!) to justify and push through
his expansion of Federal government. He completely re-wrote Article I
Section 8 and it became an "elastic clause" that is destroying our
economic stability.

This alone is putting our nation in harm's way. One enumerated power
is that Congress provide for national security. How can we do this
when this nation is bankrupt and yet both sides of the aisle insist
that they must provide health care as a fundamental RIGHT?

Something is WRONG with this picture. The debate is and must be:
should the Federal government provide health care or should this
matter be returned to the various states where it was intended in the
first place?

I'm a baby boomer. I'm not thrilled about approaching my retirement
only to relinquish my options to what the Feds and a group of
extremist czars dictate for me. We also cannot put today's seniors in
harm's way and leave them vulnerable and without the coverage
promised. We must elect a new crop of rookies who have some common
sense and who will act to protect our future generation and those not
yet in this doomed system and give them a new set of free market
choices that they can prepare to make.

This Washington Post Blog shows just how out of touch Washington, and
specifically its chief sponsor Utah's Senator Bennett, is. If we want
to do ourselves the favor of our lifetime, 2010 might a good time to
vote them all out (except perhaps a handful in the Senate and a few in
the House, including Michele Bachman and Jason Chaffetz... :-) )

Here is Washington's spin on Wyden-Bennett Health Care - Google this
bill and read pp. 15-16 (abortion coverage) and pp. 27-29 (school
based health center grants) and the expansion of Federal government
coverage into long term health care pp. 31-35. Just watch how schools
will respond if this carrot is dangled. (e.g. "More money we can get
from the Feds? Oh boy! Go for it!!!")

Read about how insurance companies will be required to provide health
benefits to domestic partnerships" (p. 17). After several decades of
radical feminist folly and the devastating results for families and
children, isn't it time for this society to get serious about what is
best for our children (our future)? Isn't it time to stop the insanity
of legally recognizing a relationship between two people who have
children but who refuse to take the commitment to legally join
together to raise those children with the legally-binding commitment
those deserve? The statistics are staggering, yet we blindly wash our
hands of the responsibiity to promote MARRIAGE and specifically
marriage between a man and a woman. Some states have constitutional
amendments that prohibit a same-sex domestic partnership (for example,
Utah).

Starting on page 61, read about how the IRS will be the collecting
("controlling") agency. Every state will get "waivers" IF they meet
the qualifications, which means they will be required to set up the
acceptable plans in order to play by Washington's rules. How about the
concept of setting up yet another "trust" fund to transfer 90% of
Medicare/Medicaid from existing funds that are already bankrupt?

In fact, does anyone trust anything Washington does any more? I'm
reminded of Reagan's famous words: "The nine most terrifying words in
the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm hear to
help.'"

No wonder Club for Growth has placed a tab on this bill many times
more than the current national health care proposal being debated and
is funding an ad campaign against it in Utah. Thank you, Chris Chocola
for caring enough to alert us as to the damage to which our Utah
Senator has contributed.

I held a producers license for a short time. On p. 31 this bill starts
addressing how the Federal government is going to fund long term
health care. Do you know how much long term care costs, on average?
Some say $54,000 a year per person for an average of three years for
women, and if you add inflation, the cost is astronomical over the
next 20 years. How will our government provide for this care for the
upcoming baby boomers? Are you 30-somethings listening? Are you not
concerned about how much you will be paying to care for us retirees
when we get there?

I have just two thoughts in general about this Federal government
approach to providing health care, or any charitable service for that
matter. Those who think it's the Federal government's role to provide
charity or to re-construct what some religious denominations call "the
law of consecration" somehow missed that particular Sunday School
lesson. It's not the Federal Government that the faithful are to call
upon to provide those charitable services. That's the role of the
Church.

Senator Bennett should understand.

Dave Ramsey understands. He says everyone should be paying a full 10%
tithing. But that's another statistic I'll comment on in another post.
Meanwhile, you do the math - population, times, income tax collected,
divided by 10% equals ??? Times poverty numbers... You will be
surprised what you will find.

Here's the Washington Post blog:

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 11:55 a.m. | The Wyden Plan
No one ever accused Ron Wyden of lacking persistence. Even as the
Finance Committee is marking up a bill that is premised on leaving the
current employer-based insurance system in place (for now), the Oregon
Democrat was making another plug for his far more aggressive reform
plan.

For several years, Wyden has, with Utah Republican Bob Bennett, been
pushing a plan that would essentially dismantle the employer-based
insurance system and replace it with one in which people would get tax
deductions to purchase their own coverage. The thinking is that this
would introduce far more competition and personal choice to health
insurance and would be fairer than the current system, where people
who get employer-based coverage benefit from the tax exempt nature of
employer based benefits while people who buy insurance on their own
must do so with after-tax dollars.

The primary objection to the proposal is that it is just too dramatic
a change for a country where health reformers feel the need to
constantly reassure people with insurance that they can "keep what
they have."The Baucus bill has actually moved slightly closer to the
Wyden vision by expanding accessibility to a new "exchange" where
small businesses and people without employer-based coverage would buy
insurance.

The bill opens up access to the exchange to employers with as many as
100 workers, and envisions further expansions in coming years, which
could over time lead to a shift away from employer-based plans and
into the exchange.

But Wyden said this is not going far enough to provide true choice to
the 200 million Americans who now have employer-based coverage."It
does not hold insurance companies accountable and it denies choice of
insurers to 200 million Americans," he said. "It stipulates that you
can keep what you have but if you don't like what you have...you're
stuck."

He said he realized that the odds of his plan had always been long: "I
know I'm taking on what amounts to the status quo lobby," he said.

And he made clear that he would be prepared to vote for the Baucus
bill even if it fell short of his vision, as many other dissatisfied
Democrats would. "This bill for a lot of my colleagues is not our
first choice," he said.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/09/live_blogging_the_senate_finan.html

My friends, will you help us - all across this nation, we must work
together to elect a new class of representatives - we need those who
are activists and advocates, who aren't going to DC to "go along to
get along" but who really care about doing what is right. Please go to
my website and donate today - small or large, it all helps. Keep this
freedom fire burning! www.Eagar4Senate.com

All my best,
Cherilyn Eagar

AP: Coverage requirement enforced with tax

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iO0ET9fSB07VdMXAhllfBPvKNYyAD9ASBJ7G0

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON — Memo to President Barack Obama: It's a tax.

Obama insisted this weekend on national television that requiring
people to carry health insurance — and fining them if they don't —
isn't the same thing as a tax increase. But the language of Democratic
bills to revamp the nation's health care system doesn't quibble. Both
the House bill and the Senate Finance Committee proposal clearly state
that the fines would be a tax.

And the reason the fines are in the legislation is to enforce the
coverage requirement.

"If you put something in the Internal Revenue Code, and you tell the
IRS to collect it, I think that's a tax," said Clint Stretch, head of
the tax policy group for Deloitte, a major accounting firm. "If you
don't pay, the person who's going to come and get it is going to be
from the IRS."

Democrats aren't the first to propose that individuals be required to
carry health insurance and fined if they refuse. The conservative
Heritage Foundation called for such a mandate in the 1990s' health
care debate, although its proposal differed from the ones pending in
Congress. Heritage has since dropped the idea and now favors using tax
credits to encourage people to buy coverage — carrots and not sticks.

During the 2008 political campaign, Obama opposed making coverage
mandatory because of the costs. His position has shifted now that it's
becoming clear such a requirement will be part of any legislation that
Congress sends him. Conservative activists are calling it a violation
of his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class.

"This is exactly what George Bush Sr. did when he said he wouldn't
raise taxes, and it cost him the next election," said Grover Norquist,
president of Americans for Tax Reform. "Obama is doing the same thing,
but he's insulting people by telling them that if you don't call it a
big purple banana, somehow it wouldn't be a tax."

Some liberals acknowledge that Obama might be vulnerable on the
insurance requirement. But they say most people will understand as
long as the legislation provides enough of a subsidy to make the
coverage affordable. That's a central issue this week as the Senate
Finance Committee starts voting on legislation.

"I think it's a metaphysical question as to whether it's a tax or
not," said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America's
Future. "The real question that will determine whether people are
upset is whether the insurance is affordable."

In an interview that aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Obama insisted
that the insurance requirement is not a tax.

"For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health
insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," the president said. "What
it's saying is...that we're not going to have other people carrying
your burdens for you anymore.

"Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto
insurance," Obama added. "Nobody considers that a tax increase.

"You just can't make up that language and decide that that's called a
tax increase," he added.

But a Democratic staff description of Sen. Max Baucus' bill calls the
proposed fines an "excise tax." Penalties of up to $950 for
individuals and $3,800 for families would be imposed on those who
don't get coverage. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said Monday he expects
the family penalty to be slashed in half to $1,900.

The House bill uses a complex formula to calculate the penalties,
calling them a "tax on individuals without acceptable health care
coverage."

The coverage mandate is part of a political bargain under which the
insurance industry would agree to take all applicants, regardless of
prior medical history.

"If we're going to have coverage without regard to pre-existing
conditions, it makes sense," said economist Roberton Williams of the
Tax Policy Center. "Otherwise people will come in the door the day
they get sick." He sees no distinction between the requirement to get
coverage and the fines themselves.

"The fact that it is imposed on people and they have no choice in
paying it, and the fact that it's administered through the tax system
all make it look like a tax," Williams said. The center is a joint
venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.

It wouldn't be the first asterisk added to Obama's campaign pledge on
taxes. Earlier this year, he signed a tobacco tax increase to pay for
children's health insurance. Even that can be read as a violation of
his expansive campaign promise.

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12, 2008.
"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see
any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax,
not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

He repeatedly promised "you will not see any of your taxes increase
one single dime."

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Budget chief contradicts Obama on Medicare costs

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gJK9ly3ovzfflxGjV-dxk2sLILKgD9ASKCQG2

By ERICA WERNER (AP) – 15 hours ago

WASHINGTON — Congress' chief budget officer is contradicting President
Barack Obama's oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn't see their
Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul.

The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas
Elmendorf, told senators Tuesday that seniors in Medicare's managed
care plans would see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance
Committee.

The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage plans by more
than $100 billion over 10 years.

Elmendorf said the changes would reduce the extra benefits that would
be made available to beneficiaries.

Critics say the plans are overpaid, while supporters say they work well.

Obama says cuts to Medicare providers won't reduce seniors' benefits.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

UN plans 'shock therapy' for world leaders on environment

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/20/united-nations-summit-climate-change

The United Nations is planning a form of diplomatic shock therapy for
world leaders this week in the hope of injecting badly needed urgency
into negotiations for a climate change treaty that, it is now widely
acknowledged, are dangerously adrift.

UN chief Ban Ki-Moon and negotiators say that unless they can convert
world leaders into committed advocates of radical action, it will be
very hard to reach a credible and enforceable agreement to avoid the
most devastating consequences of climate change.

As the digital counter ticking off the hours to the Copenhagen summit
– which had been supposed to seal the deal on climate change – hit 77
days today, progress at the UN summit in New York is seen as vital.
Nearly 100 heads of state and government are to attend the summit, for
which a pared-down format has been devised.

"We need these leaders to go outside their usual comfort zones," said
one diplomat. "Our sense is that leaders have got a little too cosy
and comfortable. They really have to hear from countries that are
vulnerable and suffering."

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, which won the Nobel peace prize with Al Gore, agreed.
Commenting on the leaders attending the G20 summit in Pittsburgh next
week, he said: "We need to remind these people about impacts of
climate change – the fact that they are inequitable and fall very
heavily on some of the poorest people in the world. We are likely to
see a large number of failed states if we don't act in time."

The heads of state attending the UN summit are to be stripped of their
entourages. Each will be allowed just one aide, generally their
country's environment minister, in the sessions.

Instead of set-piece speeches, leaders will be paired off to chair
discussion groups. Britain will be with Guyana, Tuvalu with the
Netherlands, and Mongolia with the European commission.

The leaders will also lunch with environmental activists and chief
executives of corporations who have been pressing their governments
for action. At dinner, the leaders of the biggest polluting countries
will dine with the leaders of Bangladesh, Kiribati and Costa Rica –
which are among the primary victims of climate change.

By the end of the day, the rationale goes, the leaders will be imbued
with a new sense of purpose. Leaders of rich countries will have been
galvanised to take on the big emissions cuts – 25-40% over the next
decade, 80% by 2050 – needed to keep temperatures from rising more
than two degrees above pre-industrial levels, the temperature set by
science to avoid the most calamitous effects of climate change.

The leaders will also, it is hoped, have some understanding of the
threat to poorer countries. And, at the very least, they will have
more of a common purpose in tackling the problem. "We need to gather
together. We don't want to blame or point fingers at each other," said
Yaqoub al-Sanada, counsellor at the Kuwaiti mission to the UN. Kuwait
– one of the biggest producers of oil – will co-chair a discussion
session with Finland.

The UN is hoping for help from Barack Obama. The US president will
speak at the session, and there is anticipation he will deliver a
strong signal that America is committed to action. There is growing
anxiety for those kinds of reassurances, especially as opposition to
Obama's green agenda grows in Congress. "The first question I get any
time I meet with anybody is, 'Where's the legislation? How's it
going?'," Todd Stern, the State Department's climate change envoy,
said. There are also reports that China's president, Hu Jintao, in his
first appearance at the UN, will announce new commitments to curb
pollution – the kind of signal that will be crucial to boost
negotiations in the days leading up to Copenhagen.

"We can get a successful outcome from Copenhagen. It is achievable,
but at the moment it's in the balance," said John Ashton, Britain's
climate change envoy. "We need to close the gaps."

Those gaps grew over the summer. There is what Ashton called the
"ambition gap" – the failure of leaders of the big polluting countries
to sign on to the deep emissions cuts needed. Then there is the
"finance gap" – the failure of industrialised states to come up with a
package on how to compensate poor countries that will suffer the most
devastating consequences.

Britain came forward last June with an estimate of £61bn a year by
2020. Negotiators are frustrated that major industrialised states have
not set clear figures on how much they are willing to commit, or how
they will provide the funding.

Some climate change experts and negotiators have already begun
planning a fallback position should the December Copenhagen summit
fail to produce a strong enough agreement.

In Washington, Obama administration officials now talk openly about
negotiating beyond Copenhagen. "Let's not make that one particular
time the be-all and end-all, and say that if it doesn't happen we are
doomed," Steven Chu, the energy secretary, told reporters.

Thinktanks are already starting to work on what is being called "Plan
B" – scenarios for how the world could come up with an action plan
before it is too late. But some are not holding their breath.

"It seems to me that Copenhagen is not the end of this," said Tim
Wirth, the president of the UN Foundation, and the man who, in the
1980s, helped to write the first cap-and-trade plan for acid rain. He
added: "We are going to have Copenhagens for the rest of our lives."

U.S. to push for new economic world order at G20

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE58G34Z20090921?sp=true

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will urge world leaders this
week to launch a new push in November to rebalance the world economy,
but there are doubts national governments will bow to external advice.

A document outlining the U.S. position ahead of the September 24-25
Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh said exporters, which include China,
Germany and Japan, should consume more, while debtors like the United
States ought to boost savings.

"The world will face anemic growth if adjustments in one part of the
global economy are not matched by offsetting adjustments in other
parts," said the document, which was obtained by Reuters on Monday.

The framework drafted by U.S. policy makers foresaw analysis of G20
members' economic policies by the International Monetary Fund to
figure out if they were consistent with better balanced growth.

"We call on our finance ministers to launch the new framework by
November," the document said, signaling a determined effort to
maintain momentum for change created by last year's global financial
crisis.

The United States envisages the IMF playing a central role in a
process of "mutual assessment" by making policy recommendations to the
G20 every six months.

Finance ministers and central bankers from the G20 countries are due
to meet November 7-8 in Scotland.

European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet said persuading
Europe, the United States and China to accept IMF advice on economic
policy may be difficult. In the past, many countries have ignored
suggestions the IMF dished out in regular reviews.

Trichet told French newspaper Le Monde the G20 had made progress on
reforms to make the financial system more stable after the crisis.

"The most difficult question is still open: Europe, America, China,
are they ready to modify their macroeconomic policies in the future --
by following the advice of the IMF and under pressure from their
peers, for the common good, and world economic stability?" he said in
the piece on Monday.

G7 sources told Reuters there was a renewed determination to cooperate
because the crisis had driven home the interconnected nature of the
global system. That said, governments would not allow themselves to be
told what to do.

"We can't get to a situation where any country is giving up its own
decision-making," said one source, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity.

Germany, a major exporter to the United States, was singled out on
Sunday by U.S. President Barack Obama as a country that, like China,
exports a lot but does not buy much back.

But a top European Union official said that the euro zone, where 16
countries share a common currency, had to act as a collective.

"It is difficult to think about one country without taking into
consideration what is the impact in the euro area," European
Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso told reporters in New York.

Taxpayer money to the tune of $5 trillion has been pumped into the
world economy to keep it from seizing up since the beginning of the
crisis last September.

G20 leaders will maintain that pace of stimulus while acknowledging
that at some point it will have to be wound down, the document said.

But, mindful of how a disorderly rush to raise interest rates could
roil world markets again, they will also ask finance ministers to
thrash out a "transparent and credible" exit strategy.

There were no details of how to achieve this in practice, but the
document echoed the caution of G20 finance ministers at their meeting
in London earlier this month acknowledging the pace of change would
vary by country.

Simon Johnson, a former chief economist at the IMF, warned there was a
risk the Pittsburgh summit would be an empty public relations
exercise.

"The point of the meetings is to try to reassure themselves and
everyone else that they're broadly on track and have a round of
applause and some back patting," he said.

But John Bruton, the EU ambassador to Washington, said it was
important not to ignore the summit's symbolic power.

"I think we're seeing the beginning of a conversation between world
leaders," he told Reuters in an interview.

(Additional reporting by Anna Willard in Paris, Sumeet Desai in
London, Leslie Wroughton and Emily Kaiser in Washington, Caren Bohan
in Troy, Walter Brandimarte in New York and Darren Ennis in Brussels;
Editing by Andrew Hay)

Monday, September 21, 2009

Strangers to Dissent, Liberals Try to Stifle It

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_michael_barone/strangers_to_dissent_liberals_try_to_stifle_it

It is an interesting phenomenon that the response of the left half of
our political spectrum to criticism and argument is often to try to
shut it down. Thus President Obama in his Sept. 9 speech to a joint
session of Congress told us to stop "bickering," as if principled
objections to major changes in public policy were just childish
obstinacy, and chastised his critics for telling "lies," employing
"scare tactics" and playing "games." Unlike his predecessor, he sought
to use the prestige of his office to shut criticism down.

Now, no one likes criticism very much, and most politicians would
prefer to have their colleagues and constituents meekly and gratefully
agree with them on pretty much everything. And yes, Rep. Joe Wilson
did seem to have broken the rules and standards of decorum of the
House (though not of the British House of Commons) when he shouted,
"You lie!" in the middle of Obama's speech.

But none of this justifies the charges, passed off as cool-headed
analysis, that Obama's critics are motivated by racism. There are
plenty of non-racist reasons to oppose (or to support) the Democrats'
health care proposals.

I would submit that the president's call for an end to "bickering" and
the charges of racism by some of his supporters are the natural reflex
of people who are not used to hearing people disagree with them and
who are determined to shut them up.

This comes naturally to liberals educated in our great colleges and
universities, so many of which have speech codes whose primary aim is
to prevent the expression of certain conservative ideas and which are
commonly deployed for that purpose. (For examples, see the Website of
the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which defends
students of all political stripes.) Once the haven of free inquiry and
expression, academia has become a swamp of stifling political
correctness.

Similarly, the "mainstream media" -- the old-line broadcast networks,
The New York Times, etc. -- present a politically correct picture of
the world. The result is that liberals can live in a cocoon, an
America in which seldom is heard a discouraging word. Conservatives,
in contrast, find themselves constantly pummeled with liberal
criticism, on campus, in news media, and in Hollywood TV and movies.
They don't like it, but they've gotten used to it. Liberals aren't
used to it and increasingly try to stamp it out.

"Mainstream media" try to help. In the past few weeks, we have seen
textbook examples of how MSM have ignored news stories that reflected
badly on the administration for which it has such warm feelings. It
ignored the videos in which the White House "green jobs czar"
proclaimed himself a "communist" and the "truther" petition he signed
charging that George W. Bush may have allowed the Sept. 11 attacks.

It ignored the videos released on Andrew Breitbart's biggovernment.com
showing ACORN employees offering to help a supposed pimp and
prostitute evade taxes and employ 13- to 15-year-old prostitutes. It
downplayed last spring's Tea Parties -- locally organized
demonstrations against big government that attracted about a million
people nationwide -- and downplayed the Tea Party throng at the
Capitol and on the Mall Sept. 12.

Actually, "mainstream media" are doing their friends in the Obama
administration and the Democratic Party no favors, at least in the
long run. Obama comes from one-party Chicago, and the House Democrats'
nine top leadership members and committee chairmen come from districts
that voted on average 73 percent for Obama last fall. They need help
in understanding the larger country they are seeking to govern, where
nearly half voted the other way. Instead, they get the impression they
can dismiss critics as racist or "Nazis" or as indulging in (as Sen.
Harry Reid said) "evil-mongering."

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has warned us that there's a danger that intense
rhetoric can provoke violence, and no decent person wants to see harm
come to our president or other leaders. But it's interesting that the
two most violent incidents at this summer's town hall meetings came
when a union thug beat up a 65-year-old black conservative in Missouri
and when a liberal protester bit off part of a man's finger in
California.

These incidents don't justify a conclusion that all liberals are
violent. But they are more evidence that American liberals, unused to
hearing dissent, have an impulse to shut it down.

COPYRIGHT 2009 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Obama's promise from last fall to cut taxes

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/09/obamas-promise-from-last-fall-to-cut.html

Welcome! Please e-mail me with any questions at johnrlott@aol.com.
9/20/2009
Obama's promise from last fall to cut taxes
The entire speech is available here.

My plan - all together - is a net tax cut. My plan will cut taxes
to a smaller share of the economy than they were under President
Reagan. Under my plan, income taxes for typical American families will
be the lowest that they've been in more than a half century. Everyone
in America - everyone - will pay lower taxes than they would under the
rates Bill Clinton had in the 1990s. And under my plan, middle class
families will get three times as much relief as Senator McCain is
offering. In fact, his plan gives absolutely nothing to over 100
million American households.

And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less
than $250,000 will see their taxes increase - not your income taxes,
not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your
taxes. My opponent can't make that pledge, and here's why: for the
first time in American history, he wants to tax your health benefits
Apparently, Senator McCain doesn't think it's enough that your health
premiums have doubled, he thinks you should have to pay taxes on them
too. That's a $3.6 trillion tax increase on middle class families.
That will eventually leave tens of millions of you paying higher
taxes. That's his idea of change. . . . .

Politico notes this today:

President Barack Obama blitzed the Sunday morning airwaves to
pitch health reform but found himself on the defensive — denying the
plan breaks his campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle
class and insisting the public insurance option isn't dead. . . .

"For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get
health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," Obama said on
ABC's "This Week." "What it's saying is that we're not going to have
other people carrying your burdens for you any more than the fact that
right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance.
Nobody considers that a tax increase."

Critics of Obama's proposals say that taxes and higher fees on
insurance companies, drug makers and other industries would simply be
passed on to consumers – also amounting to a hidden cost in the plan.

After he was pressed on it some more, in a testy exchange where
Stephanopoulos at one point read the definition of "tax" from Merriam
Webster's Dictionary, Obama held firm.

"My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that
I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that," Obama
said.

"But you reject that it's a tax increase?" the host said.

"I absolutely reject that notion," Obama said. . . .

Here is the problem. This tax isn't just limited to those without
health insurance. People making less than $250,000 will also pay this
tax even if they have health insurance.

As an aside, I should also point to this related promise is available here.

When Bob Schieffer asked Obama what he was going to do about the
deficit Obama promised to cut the it: "But there is no doubt that
we've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make
some adjustments. Now, what I've done throughout this campaign is to
propose a net spending cut." . . .

Sunday, September 20, 2009

One third of people registered by ACORN were rejected by election officials?

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/09/one-third-of-people-registered-by-acorn.html

In an article generally defending ACORN against the recent five films
released on biggovernment.com, there was this interesting fact
(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_debra_j_saunders/inside_the_glorious_nation_of_acorn).

Last year, ACORN was forced to acknowledge that election officials
rejected 400,000 of the 1.3 million people the group had tried to
register. . . .

The article does have some other interesting facts about problems with
the ACORN sting.

Chris Dodd Proposes 'super-regulating' Banks

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/business/economy/20regulate.html?_r=1

Leading Senator Pushes New Plan to Oversee Banks

* Sign In to E-Mail
* Print
* Reprints

Article Tools Sponsored By
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 19, 2009

WASHINGTON — The senior Senate Democrat shepherding legislation to
overhaul the nation's financial system is planning to propose the
merger of four bank agencies into one super-regulator, an idea that is
significantly different from what President Obama envisions.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Alex Wong/Getty Images

Senator Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee,
wants changes in President Obama's financial plan.

The legislation being prepared by Senator Christopher J. Dodd of
Connecticut, who heads the Senate Banking Committee, would also differ
from the Obama plan by diminishing the role of the Federal Reserve as
a systemwide overseer.

Mr. Dodd's plan is intended to be the starting point for the Senate as
it redraws the financial landscape in response to the market crisis.

For consumers, banks and the markets, Mr. Dodd's bill is expected to
take on the same central role in the debate as Senator Max Baucus's
recent bill is to remaking the health care system.

"We clearly need to put in place an architecture that restores
confidence and makes people feel that when they engage in financial
activities, from making a bank deposit to buying insurance or
investing in stock, that they can have confidence in the system," Mr.
Dodd said in an interview on Friday. "On the other side of this, I
don't want to strangle business."

In his weekly radio and Internet address on Saturday, Mr. Obama again
urged Congress to move swiftly to adopt legislation. He also accused
lobbyists for the banks of being "hard at work trying to stop the
reforms that would hold them accountable."

Lawmakers and aides say the bill Mr. Dodd is preparing to make public
in the coming weeks would be more ambitious and politically risky than
the plan offered by the White House, which considered but then decided
against combining the four banking agencies — the Federal Reserve, the
Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation and the Comptroller of the Currency — into one
superagency.

The White House backed away from that plan to avoid a phalanx of
industry opposition that might slow Congress.

In the House, Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, a Democrat
and the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, has been working
on legislation that is closer to the Obama plan on consolidation of
the agencies.

Mr. Dodd and others say that the market crisis last year was caused in
part by banks that were able to choose which agency would regulate
them, and by bank agencies that reduced regulations to encourage more
banks to choose them.

That problem would be eliminated if there were only one bank agency.

The Dodd plan is certain to run into sharp resistance from banking
industry lobbyists, who have already been urging lawmakers to defeat
it even before it is formally introduced.

It is also likely to face stiff opposition from bank regulators, who
are protective of their turf and have already raised objections about
the more modest Obama plan.

Mr. Dodd, who faces a difficult re-election campaign in Connecticut
partly because of the perception that he is cozy with the banking
industry, decided two weeks ago to remain chairman of the banking
committee rather than succeed his close friend, the late Senator
Edward M. Kennedy, as head of the health committee.

Senior Democrats in Congress say Mr. Dodd may have to thread a needle
as he publicly takes on the financial services industry — whose
members have a heavy presence in Connecticut and are some of his
biggest campaign contributors — while trying to project an image of
independence from it to get re-elected. But as chairman, he may also
have to make compromises with industry lobbyists to move the
legislation through a chamber in which bankers hold political sway.

Mr. Dodd said he decided to remain chairman after conversations with
the senior committee Republican, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama. He
said Mr. Shelby persuaded him that it would be possible to get
bipartisan support for stronger financial regulation despite major
disagreements between even the two senators.

The industry has important allies among Democrats and Republicans on
the banking committee.

Industry lobbyists and colleagues said, for instance, that several
Democrats were likely to oppose the Dodd plan to have one banking
agency, a change that has been advocated by Senator Charles E.
Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of
Virginia.

Mr. Dodd and Mr. Shelby agree generally on some issues — including
their skepticism of a more powerful Federal Reserve, reflecting a view
shared widely among lawmakers. But among their disagreements are
whether to have a new consumer financial protection agency that would
regulate credit cards, mortgages and other loans.

The Dodd plan would reduce the stature of the Federal Reserve in several ways.

The central bank, which has evolved since its creation nearly a
century ago into a powerful banking regulator and has gained even
greater power over the last year, would lose authority over banks, as
well as its ability to regulate mortgages and credit cards.

Mr. Dodd has also rejected the administration's proposal to have the
Fed play the leading role as a so-called "systemic risk" regulator
that examines the connections between regulated and unregulated
companies for trouble spots that could disrupt the markets. That role
would instead be filled by a council of regulators.

(Bowing to political skepticism about the Fed's performance before the
crisis began, the administration's plan also would create a council,
but it would put the Fed in the decisive role.)

The Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, leading an agency
threatened by the overhaul, has sought to push back by asserting the
agency's authority over subprime lending and executive pay in recent
days.

In other important respects, the Dodd plan would be similar to the
administration's.

Like the president, Mr. Dodd supports the creation of a new consumer
financial protection agency to both write and enforce new rules
protecting households from credit cards and mortgages with abusive or
deceptive terms.

The legislation would also make it easier for the government to seize
large troubled companies, as it did in the case of the American
International Group. It would give shareholders the right to have
nonbinding votes on the pay of senior executives. And it would impose
tighter oversight of the derivatives market, though how vigorously is
still not clear.

But the biggest difference is over bank consolidation. The issue is an
incendiary one for the politically influential community banks, whose
members are in every congressional district and whose top executives
are often local power brokers.

Edward L. Yingling, president of the American Bankers Association,
said the consolidation "hasn't worked in other countries that have
tried it and it faces plenty of opposition in Congress. It could be
that this is just an opening position for further negotiations."

The Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, has proposed merging two
of the four bank regulatory agencies — the Office of Thrift
Supervision, which oversees savings associations, and the Comptroller
of the Currency, which supervises nationally chartered banks — into
one agency, but he would leave the others untouched.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

New Government Policy Imposes Strict Standards on Garage Sales Nationwide

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552021,00.html

Americans who slap $1 pricetags on their used possessions at garage
sales or bazaar events risk being slapped with fines of up to $15
million, thanks to a new government campaign.

The "Resale Round-up," launched by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, enforces new limits on lead in children's products and
makes it illegal to sell any items that don't meet those limits or
have been recalled for any other reason.

The strict standards were set in the 2008 Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act after a series of high-profile recalls of Chinese-made
toys.

The standards were originally interpreted to apply only to new
products, but now the CPSC says they apply to used items as well.

"Those who resell recalled children's products are not only breaking
the law, they are putting children's lives at risk," said CPSC
Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. "Resale stores should make safety their
business and check for recalled products and hazards to children."

In order to comply, stores, flea markets, charities and individuals
selling used goods — in person or online — are expected to consult the
commission's 24-page Handbook for Resale Stores and Product Resellers
(pdf) and its Web site for a breakdown of what they can't sell.

Violators caught selling anything on the enormous list face fines of
up to $100,000 per infraction and up to $15 million for a related
series of infractions.

CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson says the fines are intended for large
companies with serious infractions.

"CPSC is an agency that has used its penalty powers over its 30-year
history against companies," Wolfson told FOXNews.com. "CPSC is not
seeking to pursue penalties against individuals hosting a garage sale
or yard sale, we are encouraging them to take the right steps to not
resell recalled products."

But FOX News Legal Analyst Bob Massi says the law makes no distinction
for families and small resellers.

"Most people having garage sales at this point don't have much anyway,
so to have a fine levied against them is tantamount to harassment,"
Massi told FOXNews.com. "And if you or I asked 100 people about this,
they would never even know the law exists."

Don Mays, senior director of product safety planning at the publisher
of Consumer Reports, says the hefty penalties are necessary to have an
impact.

"The former civil penalty limit of $1.87 million was too small to be
an effective deterrent to large companies who flagrantly violated the
law," Mays told FOXNews.com. "Mattel and its subsidiary Fisher-Price,
for example, recently paid a $2.3 million penalty for importing about
2 million toys that violated the CPSC 30-year-old lead paint ban —
that amounts to just over one dollar per toy."

When FOXNews.com came to his garage sale, vendor Ilan Broochian said
the same was not the case for his household.

"You fine me in today's economy $1000 dollars and that would hurt me,"
Broochian said. "So, just make the fine bigger to them; don't take
their responsibility and put it on me."

VIDEO: FOXNews.com Visits the Broochians' Garage Sale

"It is scary to think that there could be such hefty fines imposed on
unsuspecting households," another garage sale organizer, Patti
Lombardi, told FOXNews.com. "I think I speak for many people when I
say that the government spends too much time interfering in the
individual citizen's personal life and this is almost bordering on the
ridiculous ... what if it opens up a Pandora's box of litigation
brought by the purchasers of items at garage sales?"

Wolfson says the law may be tough, but it's necessary to keep
consumers — and especially children — safe.

"Many children have choked and died on small parts that have broken
off or been incorporated into toys," Wolfson told FOXNews.com.

He noted that dozens of children have swallowed powerful magnets that
fell out of magnetic toys and have needed open-chest surgery as
result.

"We don't make haphazard decisions about risks here at CPSC," he said.
"So much of what we do here and what this new law aims to achieve is
looking at issues where children have been hurt previously."

But critics say the Resale Round-up is just another example of the
government overstepping its boundaries.

"It's absurd when nanny-state bureaucrats want to regulate things we
buy at mom-and-pop shops or second-hand stores," Wes Benedict,
executive director of the Libertarian National Committee, told
FOXNews.com. "Consumer product safety is best left to a free market
where suppliers can compete based on reputation and track records.
American grown-ups aren't stupid, and they know they need to be
careful about what they buy for their children from complete strangers
at no-name stores."

Toy industry expert and TimetoPlayMag.com content director Chris Byrne
says the law is well-intended, but it may be taking things too far.

"The overall law I think is awfully broad and doesn't take all of the
science into effect," he told FOXNews.com. "You can't consume lead by
touching something and putting your finger in your mouth. That's not
how it happens. The lead has to be injested and has to be injested in
particles small enough to enter the bloodstream or on a material in
the stomach where it will be digested in the stomach acids and go into
the bloodstream — and that's never happened from toys."

In cases where toys have injured children, Byrne said the injuries
often resulted from misusing the product.

"In virtually all the cases of magnet swallowing these were things
that were swallowed by kids that were below the age grade, or in the
case of the older kids they were pretending to have tongue piercings.
By banning magnets, you're not going to stop that level of play,"
Byrne said.

PHOTOS: Controversial Recalls

"When you bring something into your home there should be an assumption
of risk," he added. "And if you have a child under 3 and you bring in
something age graded for 5 and up – who's responsibility is that? I
think it's the parents'."

And toys aren't the only issue. Byrne said the biggest challenge now
is for all school products.

"If I've got a wirebound notebook, the lead content in that wire
binding is now under scrutiny, even though the chance of ingesting
lead in any amount from something like that is virtually
non-existent," he said. "It's a level of political grandstanding to
say 'we're taking care of everything,' but the science clearly
demonstrates that the transference is not really possible — I mean, a
child who eats the wire binding from a notebook is going to have
significantly worse health problems than lead."

The Resale Round-up has led some resale stores and charities to stop
accepting children's goods altogether, something President and CEO of
Goodwill Industries Jim Gibbons said has some clients concerned.

"I saw on blogs, consumers saying, 'Don't take away my ability to shop
at Goodwill for children's clothing – this is how I clothe my kids and
get them to school,'" Gibbons told FOXNews.com.

The problem, he said, is every not-for-profit and 'mom and pop thrift
shop' has different capabilities and resources and a broad-brush
approach may leave them unable to provide services.

Still, Gibson said, Goodwill generally has been able to continue
serving its communities, and he believes CPSC is working hard to take
a law "that was probably written in haste" and implement it in an
effective manner.

"They're really committed to common-sense approaches and working in
good faith with at least the social services kind of thrift segment,"
he said. "And we've been working very proactively with them to make
sure that folks at Goodwill are educated, have access to the CPSC
guidelines and are making themselves available for as much training as
CPSC can provide as they try to figure out how to work with this
legislation."

For more information on the Resale Round-up go to www.cspc.gov.

Obama Push for 'World' Regulations

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNRS9zQAgnBQ

Obama Says Financial Regulations Must Be Strengthened Globally
Share | Email | Print | A A A

By Nicholas Johnston

Sept. 19 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said tougher financial
regulations are needed worldwide to protect consumers, provide
economic stability and prevent future crises.

With the leaders from the Group of 20 nations set to meet next week in
Pittsburgh, Obama said in his weekly address on the radio and Internet
that international cooperation has "stopped our economic freefall."

"We know we still have a lot to do, in conjunction with nations around
the world, to strengthen the rules governing financial markets and
ensure that we never again find ourselves in the precarious situation
we found ourselves in just one year ago," Obama said.

The administration has proposed an overhaul of U.S. financial
regulations including oversight of the systemic risk large financial
institutions pose to the economy, new ways for the government to
dismantle failed companies and a regulator to oversee financial
products for consumers.

Obama reiterated his calls for Congress to act on his regulatory
proposals, which he also made in a speech on Wall Street Sept. 13.

"As I told leaders of our financial community in New York City earlier
this week, a return to normalcy can't breed complacency," Obama said
in today's address. "Our government needs to fundamentally reform the
rules governing financial firms and markets to meet the challenges of
the 21st century."

Oversight for Consumers

Obama said a central element to this regulatory overhaul is a new
agency to oversee consumer products, including mortgages and credit
cards.

"We need clear rules, clearly enforced. And that's what this agency
will do," Obama said.

Obama said lobbyists for financial institutions are already fighting
against new regulations.

"We cannot let the narrow interests of a few come before the interests
of all of us," Obama said. "We cannot forget how close we came to the
brink, and perpetuate the broken system and breakdown of
responsibility that made it possible."

In the Republican address, North Carolina Representative Sue Myrick
focused on Obama's health-care proposals, which are being debated in
Congress. She said the plan being offered by Obama and congressional
Democrats would lead to government-run insurance and that would mean
delays in care.

Access to Care

"Every family that confronts a serious illness should have access to
the highest-quality care at the lowest possible cost, with no delays,"
Myrick said.

Obama has said he favors a government-run insurance program to compete
with private insurers. While he has suggested he wouldn't make it a
requirement as part of final legislation, other Democrats including
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California have said it must be part of
any bill.

"Replacing your current health care with a government-run system is
not the answer," Myrick said.

Myrick also said the health-care proposals would lead to tax increases
on small businesses that would lead to the elimination of more than
1.6 million jobs.

"This is the worst possible time to be imposing new, job- killing
taxes," Myrick said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Nicholas Johnston in Washington
at Njohnston3@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: September 19, 2009 06:00 EDT

Swiss Gun Debate

Staring down the barrel of Swiss gun traditions

Switzerland is grappling with a question and it’s a loaded one: should its citizens be allowed to keep military rifles at home? The shooting traditions are deep-rooted in this country where basic military training is mandatory and so is storing weapons at home. It’s estimated that over 500,000 military rifles are kept in Swiss cellars and cupboards. WRS video journalist Amy Wong went to the Tiro Federale in Campagna (also called the Feldschiessen in German or Tir fédéral en campagne in French) the largest shooting festival in the world, to witness this 83-year-old tradition.

This is a SIG 550. It’s designed to destroy anything standing within its 400 m trajectory. And there are over 500 thousand of them kept Swiss homes.

Guns and shooting are a strong Swiss tradition. Basic military training is mandatory for young men, and afterwards they’re required to keep their weapon at home.

Marc Heim is the Ticino representative for the lobby group ProTell.

MARC HEIM: This was my father’s military rifle and of course he got to keep it when he was finished. I have my grandfather’s military rifle hanging on the office wall. This was mine when I did service. It’s quite an old one it was introduced in 1957 and used until 1990. And this is my son’s. It’s the current model. That’s what’s being used today. That’s what we’ll be using the shoot the Feldschiessen today.

The Feldschessen, or Tiro Federale in Campagna as it’s known in these parts is an annual Swiss event and the largest shooting festival in the world. Roughly 200 thousand people come out to target practice all across the country. ammunition is provided by the government.

Heim goes regularly to this range, and it’s often a family affair.

HEIM: It was organized by the government to have a very high state of readiness for the Swiss military and population. The target has always been that within 24 to 48 hours, Switzerland could mobilize a pretty large army. I mean, even by European standards.

But it wasn’t the militia that sparked Heim’s interest in guns as young man. It was an unassuming trip to a holocaust museum.

HEIM: I was going through all the exhibits and the soaps and the lampshades made of people’s skin, and while I was looking, I heard a funny noise, and there was an old woman, maybe two metres from me. She was trying not to cry. She was sort of sobbing very quietly. She was sort of holding it back. If she had been a few more meters away I wouldn’t have heard her. And that’s when it all hit me. I promised myself I will never be in her situation. I would want to be free and never in a situation where they could just march us off to ovens or prisons.or just take away our freedom.

HEIM: The key to freedom is the ability to be able to defend yourself, and if you don’t have the tools to do that then you are at the mercy of anyone who wants to put you away. And the tools for that are guns.

However, not everyone sees guns the same way.
While gun crime is relatively low in Switzerland, more than 300 people a year are killed military rifles, the majority of them suicides. Recently efforts for more regulation have been picking up. And a certain faction of people want military rifles stored in army barracks, rather than peoples cellars.

Tobias Schnebli is an activist with the Group for Switzerland without an Army.

TOBIAS SCHNEBLI: You do have studies that show that having firearms so easily available in every home does augment cases of abuse of this. Availability of firearms and military firearms in Swiss homes is one part of the problem. It’s not the whole problem that’s for sure, but there is no military justification for this tradition to be kept when we see the keeping of this tradition does facilitate these cases of abuse. Every case of abuse is a case too much.

HEIM: In the case of a son who kills himself, I know one. I cannot imagine anything worse happening. But it has nothing to do with the guns. It’s a totally separate issue. If he had killed himself with a knife, what would you do with knives? If he jumped out a window, would you close up all the windows? It has no connection at all with guns.

The initiative to ban guns will likely go to a national vote in a couple of years.

Amy Wong, World Radio Switzerland, in Comano.

Photos

Friday, September 18, 2009

What do you think about a Constitutional Convention?

It's a scary prospect, since the entire constitution could be
changed...What do you think?

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_f285f474-a39f-11de-9a25-001cc4c002e0.html

The United States faces bankruptcy, as average Americans protest
furiously in tea parties and town hall meetings. Yet Congress and the
administration press ahead with plans spend trillions that they don't
have.

The system is broken. Washington is unresponsive. Politicians use your
money to buy votes through government handouts. The debt piles higher
and higher. Health insurance is important, but the issue pales by
comparison to economic survival.

What Americans fear is utter ruin and what could come in its wake -
widespread poverty, chaos and government control. Freedom itself
depends upon economic security.

Make no mistake: America is teetering on the brink of an abyss, and
that knot in your stomach is shared by millions.

The answer is to get our financial house in order, starting with the
elimination of deficit spending and the balancing of the federal
budget.

But the discipline to do this will not come from President Obama, nor
from Congress, which is a lost cause where fiscal restraint is
concerned. Congress seems capable only of bleeding the middle class
while authorizing greater debt. Both political parties are to blame,
but the so-called "progressives" who now hold power will certainly
never be the authors of a new fiscal discipline. They will not lead us
out of the hole. They are, in fact, aiming for something else.

Congress's record of economic management - especially lately - is the
very definition of irresponsibility. Worse than useless for decades,
Congress has now become a danger. Do not look there for answers; you
won't find them.

States have the power

But if not Congress, who? Who can rescue America from what appears to
be a fatal slide into insolvency?

Look to the states. They've always had the power to assert their will
through a mechanism of the Constitution that the Founding Fathers put
in place for just such an emergency. That mechanism, found in Article
V, has never been used, but it gives states all of the necessary power
to put the nation back on sound footing - economically, and in any
other way that "We the People" see fit.

It's called a constitutional convention, and its purpose is to amend
the Constitution to impose the will of the people when the

system breaks down. Such a convention bypasses Congress entirely. It
is initiated by the states alone. They can force the federal
government to balance the budget in the way they choose, not by
raising taxes.

A vote of two-thirds of the states (34) triggers a convention - in
this case, a convention could be called for the sole purpose of
debating and passing a balanced budget amendment. If three-fourths of
the states (38) subsequently debate and agree to an amendment, that
amendment becomes part of the Constitution, the supreme law of the
land.

Never in the history of this country has fiscal responsibility been
more important. The annual federal budget deficit hit $1.38 trillion
in August, with a month left to go in the fiscal year. That's $1
trillion higher than any year in history. And it's on top of a total
federal debt of $11.6 trillion, which will rise to $13 trillion or
more by 2013 and continue to soar.

The only way to stay solvent will be to raise taxes to crushing
levels, to suffer ruinous inflation or to default on the debt - which
is genuine bankruptcy.

Look back at history, and you'll find that such financial catastrophes
as America faces today have ruined more nations than wars or natural
disasters ever could.

Many Americans now see that the well-being, even the survival, of the
nation are at stake in the financial decisions being made today. That
is why 80 percent of America rates the economy as poor and a majority
are anxious about making ends meet, according to a new Associated
Press-GfK poll. That's why "tea parties" express growing frustration
all over the country and why, at tumultuous town hall meetings, people
grill their elected officials.

People are fearful, and rightfully so.

On Saturday, crowds filled Washington to protest runaway government
spending. Outside observers estimated that between 1 and 2 million
people appeared. Even if the number was a fourth that, it's still huge
- made more staggering by the fact that these were ordinary Americans
who don't normally protest. There was no big organization at work, no
media hype. Yet they showed up to decry irresponsible spending.

And for every person who attended, there were countless counterparts
at home who feel the same way. That march was just the smoke from a
burning fuse. The powder keg is what was once known as the Silent
Majority, people from the mainstream who rose to stop the Vietnam war
and then went back into dormancy.

Now the Silent Majority is beginning to speak again. Anger is building
among millions of ordinary Americans. And when the American people get
mad - as tyrants from George III through Saddam Hussein discovered too
late - watch out.

Path to fiscal health

Fiscal restraint must be imposed on the federal government now for the
good of the country, and the states have the power to impose it. We
may not get another chance. The worst possible course is to continue
down the path of government handouts and bailouts that only increase
debt and sap our freedoms.

Step 1 on the responsible path is to require a balanced federal budget
every year.

Sadly, presidents and Congresses of both parties have failed to stem
the flow of red ink. And there is nothing to indicate that either
party is serious about cutting back on spending now. The states need
to send a message in the most forceful of terms, through our greatest
bulwark of liberty and effective government, the Constitution of the
United States.

Pass a balanced budget amendment by a vote of the states, and cut
Congress out. The states have the power to do this.

Of course, a balanced budget amendment has been discussed in academic
circles before. Politicians, on both sides of the aisle, have been
bringing it up since 1936. In 1982, one version of the amendment was
approved in the Senate but failed in the House. In 1995, the House
OK'd a version, but it was defeated in the Senate. Washington
politicians, it seems, just want to keep the gravy train rolling.

Fortunately, the Constitution clearly empowers the people themselves
(working through their states) to force amendments. The Constitution
gives the people the power to call a new convention, like the one in
1787 and to dictate new rules.

It's been tried before

Though this power is little known now, hundreds of petitions have been
passed by legislatures over the years. And they have worked
indirectly. In the early 20th Century, for example, 30 state
legislatures - one shy of what was then needed - passed petitions
calling for a convention for the direct election of senators. Feeling
the heat, Congress responded by passing the 17th Amendment for that
purpose, and the states subsequently ratified it.

This time, a convention could be called to consider a balanced budget amendment.

In the early 1980s, 32 states passed resolutions calling for a
balanced budget amendment. That's just two short of the 34 needed to
call a convention. Both measures stalled there, however.

So why try it now? Because the situation is dire. The political mood
is favorable. The stars have aligned.

On Oct. 1, 1982, when calls for a balanced budget narrowly failed, the
total debt amassed by the U.S. in more than 200 years was $1.1
trillion. That's less than the debt the government piled up in the
first nine months of this fiscal year. In other words, the idea of a
convention nearly triumphed when the debt was a fraction of what it is
now.

But what worried people then terrifies them today. The time is ripe.
It is time for the states to yank Congress's chain.

The biggest bogeyman of a new constitutional convention is the fear -
unfounded, in our view - that a new convention could get out of
control and end with a total rewrite of the Constitution. We have more
faith in Americans than that. You won't get a three-fourths vote of
approval if wild shenanigans are attempted with our most precious
charter.

Still, any call for a convention must make clear that the purpose is
solely to consider a balanced budget amendment, nothing else.

Second, any proposed amendment must provide a clear basis upon which
budgeting is done, directly limiting deficits while allowing for
genuine emergencies.

Here's a rough draft of what a balanced budget amendment might look like:

"Except in a case of national emergency, Congress shall not budget for
a given year an amount greater than the total revenues actually
collected in the previous year. Congress may approve a budget deficit
in time of national emergency, if a state of emergency is first
declared by the President and if Congress concurs by resolution of
three-fourths of each House; but no budget deficit shall exceed 10
percent of the previous year's actual revenue."

Obligation of Congress

Americans worried about the nation's financial solvency should
immediately begin to push their state legislators toward a
constitutional convention. Once 34 states are on board, Congress is
obliged to call a convention, and would set the dates.

To be sure, there are unknowns, as it's never been done before. Yet
that fact is also energizing. A new convention would be one of the
biggest events in American political history. There would be intense
media and public scrutiny, which is all to the good. Some of
Congress's worst offenses happen when the public isn't paying
attention, or when lawmakers can slip a profitable little clause into
a huge piece of legislation. That could not happen here, not with so
much in the spotlight.

Delegates would be selected from every state. The convention would
meet and settle into the hard work of debate, drafting, compromise and
final passage.

The Constitution has checks and balances for everything, even the
expression of the people's will, and that principle would apply here.
Any approved amendment would go back to Congress, which would then
propose a mode of ratification - a vote of state legislatures, for
example, or state ratifying conventions.

In all but one previous case, proposed amendments have gone to the
state legislatures for ratification. That makes sense, as state
lawmakers are close to the people. Alternatively, Congress could send
the proposed amendment to specially convened ratifying conventions in
the states - like those that followed the original constititutional
convention of 1787. State ratifying conventions were used in the case
of the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition, and that mode could
be used again.

Either choice amounts to a mere detail that won't matter much. If
there's enough energy to create a balanced budget amendment in the
first place, there will be no resistance to ratification.

This entire process is testimony to the genius of the Founders. The
convention process allows the people, acting through the states, to
impose their will on the national government.

There has never been a more important time for Americans to assert themselves.

The idea is not utterly devoid of risk; but neither is the
continuation of reckless, irresponsible government spending. We live
in scary times, but don't forget that those who attended the
convention in Philadelphia in 1787 had never created a nation before;
yet they moved forward. Like them, we put our trust in the people.
Aroused and alarmed, they will do the right thing.

The time has come for the people to speak.

From Article V of the Constitution:

The Congress ... on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds
of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing
Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and
Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the
Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions
in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification
may be proposed by the Congress.

Posted in Editorial on Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:30 am Updated: 9:49 am.

Campaign Update: Eagar Wins Logan Debate

I haven't confirmed who 'called' the win in this debate. But sounds
like she did a good job. Wish I could have seen it.

Campaign Update: Eagar Wins Logan Debate
Share
Today at 9:00am
Debate News Release

LOGAN, UTAH, Thursday, September 10, 2009. Cherilyn Eagar, Republican
candidate for the United States Senate, won the first U.S. Senate
debate of the season held on Wednesday night at Willow Park in Logan,
Utah. In addition to Eagar, Republican challengers Attorney General
Mark Shurtleff, James Williams and Democrat Sam Granato were in
attendance. All of the candidates present at the debate highlighted
the absence of Utah's incumbent Senator Bob Bennett who was a
noticeable no-show at the debate.

A highlight of the debate was when Eagar brought to the crowd's
attention that the third-term incumbent Attorney General opposed the
amendment making English Utah's official language, as well as a bill
to deny driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. "What was he doing at
a pro-amnesty rally using Cesar Chavez's – and Barack Obama's words –
'Si se puede?" (Yes, we can.)

Although the Attorney General denied having ever attended any
pro-amnesty rally, Eagar cited reports in the Deseret News and has
witnesses who were in attendance at two separate events.
Eagar said, "If I were the Attorney General, I would never have stood
on the stage next to Leftist Rocky Anderson. I would never have said
that I have 'a Latino heart.' We have a rich tapestry in America. I
have an 'American heart.' We are not hyphenated-Americans."

The crowd chuckled when Eagar quipped, "He might consider returning
that award from Mexican President Vincente Fox."

Eagar said she is counting on the support of the same immigration
proponents that helped Jason Chaffetz win his election. "The Americans
for Better Immigration give our incumbent Senator a D+ rating. If they
could rate our incumbent Attorney General, he would probably get a D."
"What I liked about Ms. Eagar is that she was so positive and spoke
strongly on the issues," said Mike Stamp of Logan.

She also put the Attorney General on the defensive with her question
about his past opposition to Proposition 3, Utah's marriage amendment,
which he attacked back in 2003 as "bad law." The Attorney General
showed his support of hate crimes legislation and his opposition to
the marriage amendment by attending a homosexual fundraiser.

Eagar also confronted the Attorney General with the fact that he
refused to defend State Rep. Carl Wimmer's state abortion ban. He
rejected an offer for free defense, forcing Wimmer to abandon the bill
and set up a defense fund instead.

Cherilyn Eagar and her husband Randy are co-owners of WebsTarget, a
real estate Internet marketing company. As a lifelong conservative
volunteer activist, this race is her second run for public office. She
describes herself as a common sense conservative and Reagan Republican
running on the constitutional conservative principles of fiscal
restraint, limited government, free market solutions, energy
independence and a strong national defense.

Constitution Day Speeches in Lehi, Tomorrow Night

Announcing a new Meetup for Utah County We Surround Them Meetup!

What: Constitution Day Celebration

When: September 19, 2009 7:00 PM

Where:
Lehi Veterans Memorial Building
55 N Center Street
Lehi, UT 84043

Happy Constitution Day!

The Freedom Forum and Latterday Conservative.com are teaming up and
putting on the following event:

In commemoration of Constitution Day, we will be honored to hear from two
excellent Constitutional scholars...

Gary Alder will speak on: "The Structure of the Constitution Protects Us
from Tyranny"

Ken Bowers will speak on "The Miracle Called America"

Gary Alder has been teaching courses on the Constitution for several years,
including a course he developed titled "The American Constitutional
Paradigm". You can learn more about Gary on his website: freedomformula.us.
Gary Alder is also a regular co-host on the blog talk radio show "March of
Liberty".

Ken Bowers is the author of "Hiding in Plain Sight" and "Beneath the Tide".
He worked closely with W. Cleon Skousen and his library of extensive
writings and documents during the years before Skousen's death. Ken Bowers
is a writer online for the Salt Lake Examiner.

This is sure to be a great event, very educational and inspirational! Please
invite your friends, family, neighbors and others to join us is
commemorating and learning about the United States Constitution and the
Miracle Called America.

Learn more here:
http://www.meetup.com/utahcounty/calendar/11396899/