Carl Wimmer: Bill to opt-out of health care

ACTION ALERT! Tue. Feb. 2nd at 8:00am, Rm W30 of the state capitol, the House Health and Human services committee will take official action on HB67, the opt-out of the Fed. health care bill! If you're able to come, we want to pack the room with support! If you can't come, email the state Reps and tell them to support HB67 Carl Wimmer's health care opt-out bill. (will post a link below to the emails of all Reps)

Most say opt out of health reform

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_14265496?IADID

If a federal health reform bill passes, a majority of Utahns say the state should have the choice to opt out, no matter what the consequences, a new Salt Lake Tribune poll shows.

Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, is carrying a bill that would make it illegal for state agencies to implement any part of a new federal law without first reporting to the Legislature. House Speaker David Clark and Fruit Heights Republican Julie Fisher are sponsoring resolutions that urge Congress and the federal government to respect states' 10th Amendment rights.

"We want to get to the top of the same hill," Clark said. "Our pathways are as different as the politics."

Opting out could jeopardize the flow of federal dollars for programs like Medicaid. No matter, Utahns say.

Salt Lake City resident Mark Evans, who supports a state opt out, said federal health reform will financially cripple states by piling on unfunded mandates.

"The government has never been able to solve problems or manage anything," said Evans, 57. "I think that [health reform] is best done by the private sector. I think the level of health care that is basically available to most people throughout the nation is good."

Small-business owner Dell Clement thinks states are smaller, more nimble and thus better able to tackle the health care conundrum.

"I just think if it [reform] were on the state level, we would have a little more control than if it were on the federal level," the 50-year-old Lehi resident said.

Clark, along with Senate President Michael Waddoups, wants Utah to be able to use any federal dollars it receives for its own state-specific solution. The two lawmakers argue the merit of their idea in an editorial they expect to be published soon in The Washington Post .

"Take the challenge. Give us a chance. Rather than risk an entire national system, let's allow a state or two to try to demonstrate what may work," said Clark, one of the Utah Legislature's lead architects of reform that focuses on private insurers.

He and others, including Republican U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, think Utah is on the right path. Hatch cites Utah's efforts to help businesses give a contribution to employees, who shop for their own policy on a state exchange.

"You could learn from all 50 states what to do and what not to do," Hatch said recently on the Senate floor. "Utah has taken important and aggressive steps toward sustainable health care reform. The current efforts to introduce a defined contribution health benefits system and implement the Utah Health Exchange are laudable accomplishments."

Norman Thurston, the state's health policy and reform initiative coordinator, said Utah is indeed on the cutting edge.

"What makes it happen is the willingness of such a broad coalition of people to tackle the hard problems and move forward the legislation," he said. "Both parties have been involved, the business community, the health care provider community -- and that has allowed Utah to move forward on some very ... difficult questions."

In both Utah and Massachusetts, two states that have made some of the biggest strides in reform, "it was very much a collaborative and consultative process, far more so than what you're seeing in Washington [D.C.]," said Ed Haislmaier, an expert in health care policy and markets at The Heritage Foundation. "I would say the bipartisanship at the end of the process is a product of that as much as it's an instigator of it."

This kind of collaboration "was present at the beginning in Washington, but it very quickly got lost," he said.

Not everyone thinks Utah can, or should, reform its health system on its own, however.

"I don't know why they say our health care system is so great," said Deanna MacDonald, 50, of Cottonwood Heights. "I don't think they have ever made a trip to the ER."

MacDonald, whose husband is a health care provider, said too many people are uninsured and are not getting the health care they need. "If we opt out [of federal health reform], who is going to take care of the people who still need coverage?"

Janice Houston, coverage initiatives director for the Utah Health Policy Project, said it's a matter of resources. "I think it's becoming more and more apparent that Utah has been great at being a leader," she said, "but there are some places where we're never going to have the economies of scale to effect change."

The state's budget, for instance, isn't big enough to subsidize the cost of health coverage for all of its lowest income residents, she said.

And Utah is finding some of the tenets of national reform -- requiring all small groups to shop through the exchange and making it more difficult for insurers to reject applicants, for instance -- are what works best here after all.

It was a lesson Clark and his colleagues at the Legislature learned after the first round of pricing for the exchange revealed flaws in how it was designed.

But that, the House speaker said, proves his point exactly: the state Legislature rolled out the exchange as part of a limited launch in order to identify and fix any glitches. The employer-contribution system will be retooled until it functions as planned, he said.

If federal health reform has the same problems that state reform has, it would be much more costly and difficult to change.

"We think we have the ability to craft solutions that make a lot of sense for Utahns," said Clark, pointing to a number of pilot projects. "Let us incubate."

lrosetta@sltrib.com

Tribune reporter Matt Canham contributed to this story.

The Obama Tire Tax

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574431641244584198.html

Remember that 35% tariff President Obama imposed on tires imported from China this month? American drivers will sure find it hard to forget, as the higher costs start trickling down to U.S. consumers.

Since the tariff announcement on September 11, U.S. tire wholesalers have been warning that their sales prices to retailers will increase by about 15% on average. In some cases, the hikes are as high as 28%, according to industry sources. The only reason prices haven't risen by the full 35% tariff rate yet is that wholesalers still have some pre-tariff inventory stocks in their warehouses.

Eventually, this Obama tire tax will squeeze consumers hard because wholesalers and retailers have margins too thin to absorb much of the impact themselves. It may take a few months, Bill Trimarco of Hercules Tire in Ohio told us, but the price hikes are coming.

Low-income Americans will bear the brunt of the pain because Chinese tiremakers sell the cheapest tires, retailing for about $50 a piece at the lowest. An extra $15 for two replacement tires or $30 for four—and up to $70 more once the full tariff cost hits the market—might not sound like much. But for Americans scraping by on tight budgets, or who have lost their jobs in the recession, that amounts to school supplies for the kids, some new clothes or a tank or two of gasoline. Or consumers can just take the safety risk of driving a little longer on worn-out tires before replacing them.

Mr. Obama's political sop to the United Steelworkers union that requested this tire protectionism will be expensive for the economy overall, too. Rutgers economist Thomas J. Prusa, who had estimated the potential impacts of tariffs at the request of tire importers, calculates that the 35% tariff will cost the economy about 20,000 jobs in the tire distribution and retail sector while "saving" only 1,000 jobs at domestic manufacturing plants. U.S. consumers will pay $330,000 in higher tire prices for each of those 1,000 jobs.

Perhaps Mr. Obama thought setting the rate at 35% would be a good compromise since the International Trade Commission had proposed a tariff of 55%. The reality is that industry margins are so thin and consumer budgets are so tight that even a 35% tariff will hurt the economy. Mr. Obama's first big trade-policy call is turning out to be a very expensive mistake.

Americans are told that they don't understand the benefits of the stimulus plan because they are "dumb"

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2010/01/americans-are-told-that-they-dont.html

Joe Klein at Time magazine thinks Americans don't appreciate the stimulus because they are dumb.

Absolutely amazing poll results from CNN today about the $787 stimulus package: nearly three out of four Americans think the money has been wasted. On second thought, they may be right: it's been wasted on them. Indeed, the largest single item in the package--$288 billion--is tax relief for 95% of the American public. This money is that magical $60 to $80 per month you've been finding in your paycheck since last spring. Not a life changing amount, but helpful in paying the bills. . . .

1. The Obama Administration has done a terrible job explaining the stimulus package to the American people...especially since there have been very few documented cases of waste so far.
2. This is yet further evidence that Americans are flagrantly ill-informed...and, for those watching Fox News, misinformed.
It is very difficult to have a democracy without citizens. It is impossible to be a citizen if you don't make an effort to understand the most basic activities of your government. It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you're a nation of dodos.

I think that it is people like Klein who are not very bright. See here, here, and here as examples.

Public's Priorities for 2010: Global Warming at the bottom

http://people-press.org/report/584/policy-priorities-2010.

As Barack Obama begins his second year in office, the public's priorities for the president and Congress remain much as they were one year ago. Strengthening the nation's economy and improving the job situation continue to top the list. And, in the wake of the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound airliner, defending the country from future terrorist attacks also remains a top priority.

At the same time, the public has shifted the emphasis it assigns to two major policy issues: dealing with the nation's energy problem and reducing the budget deficit. About half (49%) say that dealing with the nation's energy problem should be a top priority, down from 60% a year ago. At the same time, there has been a modest rise in the percentage saying that reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority, from 53% to 60%.

Other policy priorities show little change from a year ago. For example, despite the ongoing debate over health care reform, about as many now call reducing health care costs a top priority (57%) as did so in early 2009 (59%). In fact, the percentage rating health care costs a top priority is lower now than it was in both 2008 (69%) and 2007 (68%).

In addition, the percentage placing top priority on providing health insurance to the uninsured stands at 49%. That is little changed from a year ago and off its high of 61% in January 2001. Notably, there is now a wider partisan gap in opinion about this issue than for any of the other 20 issues in the survey: fully 75% of Democrats rate providing health insurance to the uninsured as a top priority compared with just 26% of Republicans.

More than six-in-ten Americans say securing the Social Security system (66%) and securing the Medicare system (63%) should be top priorities for Obama and Congress. About as many (65%) say that improving the educational system should be a top policy priority. For all three items, public evaluations are not significantly different than they were one year ago.

In the wake of the financial crisis, the public does not place increased financial regulation among its top policy priorities. Fewer than half (45%) say stricter regulation of financial institutions should be a top priority for the president and Congress.

Budget Deficit and Energy

The priority given to reducing the budget deficit has risen seven points over the last year; in early 2009, 53% of the public called deficit reduction a top priority compared with 60% in the current survey. Both Republicans (+10 points) and Democrats (+8 points) have become more likely to say this is a top priority. 

Emphasis on the budget deficit has increased since 2002, when it reached a low ebb following several years of budget surpluses (from 1998 to 2001 the question was worded "paying off the national debt"). Currently, the priority given to reducing the budget deficit is not significantly higher than it was in 2008 (58% top priority) or 1997 (60% top priority) and it lags slightly behind the high of 65% in December 1994.

In the past two years, there has been no difference between the priority Republicans and Democrats place on reducing the budget deficit. In the current survey, a single point separates Republicans (61% top priority) from Democrats (60% top priority). In 2009, partisans were equally close in their views. This is a dramatic change from much of the previous decade. Throughout the Bush administration, Democrats expressed far more concern than Republicans over the deficit. The opposite was true in 1997, when Bill Clinton was in office. At that time significantly more Republicans than Democrats said reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority.

Six-in-ten independents say this should be a top priority, matching the views of Republicans and Democrats. Independents' concern over the budget deficit has been stable over the past three years.

While concern over the budget deficit has gone up, the percentage giving priority to dealing with the nation's energy problem has declined significantly – and this decline has taken place among Republicans, Democrats and independents alike. In the current survey, 49% rate energy a top priority, down 11 points from 60% in 2009. In the late 2000s, about six-in-ten consistently gave top priority to dealing with the nation's energy problem. The current number is more in line with views from the early years of that decade, when the percentage that said dealing with the nation's energy problem should be a top priority ranged from the low-to-mid 40s.

 

Global Warming and the Environment

Dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the public's list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey. Since 2007, when the item was first included on the priorities list, dealing with global warming has consistently ranked at or near the bottom. Even so, the percentage that now says addressing global warming should be a top priority has fallen 10 points from 2007, when 38% considered it a top priority. Such a low ranking is driven in part by indifference among Republicans: just 11% consider global warming a top priority, compared with 43% of Democrats and 25% of independents.

Protecting the environment fares somewhat better than dealing with global warming on the public's list of priorities, though it still falls on the lower half of the list overall. Some 44% say that protecting the environment should be a top priority for Obama and Congress, little changed from 2009.

Jobs, Economy and Terrorism Defense

Strengthening the nation's economy, improving the job situation and defending the country from future terrorist attacks are far-and-away the top three policy priorities for the public. No other item comes within 14 points. Last year, both the economy and jobs edged ahead of defending the nation against terrorism as top priorities. In 2008, the economy and terrorism defense were virtually tied atop the priority list, while somewhat fewer people expressed concern over jobs. In 2006 and 2007, the public was more concerned about terrorism than it was about economic issues.

Improving the job situation has moved to the top of the list only recently. For much of the past decade, the percent of the public calling the job situation a top priority fluctuated in the 60s and trailed the economy. It spiked to 82% in 2009 and stands at 81% in the current survey.

There are no major differences in how Republicans, Democrats and independents prioritize strengthening the economy. Democrats are somewhat more likely than Republicans and independents to rate improving the job situation as a top priority. And Republicans are slightly more inclined than Democrats and independents to give top priority to defending the country from future terrorist attacks. Nonetheless, at least 75% of all groups give top priority to these issues, and partisan differences are generally modest when compared to differences over other policy priorities.

Dueling Partisan Agendas

Despite general partisan agreement on the importance of improving the job situation, strengthening the economy and protecting the country, large differences exist between Republicans and Democrats on other leading issues.

Republicans and Democrats take starkly different positions on the importance of providing health insurance to the uninsured; 75% of Democrats call this a top priority compared with 26% of Republicans. The 49-point gap in opinion is the largest for any of the 21 issues tested. Health insurance also was the most political divisive issue a year ago, though the gap was smaller at 38 points. In the current survey, 41% of independents call providing health insurance to the uninsured a top priority.

Democrats also are far more likely than Republicans to put a top priority on dealing with global warming, the problems of poor and needy people, protecting the environment, reducing health care costs and improving the educational system. In each case, Democrats are at least 20 points more likely than Republicans to consider each of these issues top priorities.

Republicans, by contrast, place more emphasis than do Democrats on strengthening the military, dealing with illegal immigration, and reducing the influence of lobbyists and special interests in Washington. Here again, the gaps in opinion are relatively large, with Republicans being about 20 points more likely than Democrats to call each of these issues top priorities.

The gap between Republicans and Democrats on reducing the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups in Washington has widened this year; 45% of Republicans say this should be a top priority compared with 27% of Democrats. In 2009, Republicans (37%) were somewhat more likely than Democrats (30%) to call reducing the influence of lobbyists and special interests a top priority. And in 2007, the partisan balance was reversed with more Democrats (44%) calling this a top priority than Republicans (28%).

Reducing the budget deficit and reducing federal income taxes for the middle class are two points of partisan agreement. Almost the same percentage of Republicans and Democrats call these issues top priorities.

State of the Union Address

With Obama's State of the Union address set for Jan. 27, 39% say that this year's address will be more important than past years' addresses, while 45% think it will be about as important as previous State of the Union addresses. Just 9% say it will be less important. At 39%, the public assigns greater importance to Obama's address than they did to the last three State of the Union speeches given by former President George W. Bush. Nonetheless, fewer see Obama's upcoming address as more important than said that about Bush's State of the Union addresses in 2002 and 2003.

In January 2002, 54% said that Bush's State of the Union was more important than in previous years. Opinion was similar a year later in January 2003. The percentage saying that Obama's State of the Union address is more important than in previous years is much greater than it was for former President Clinton's speeches in 1999 and 2000.

About half of Democrats (54%) say that Obama's State of the Union address will be more important than speeches in past years. Republicans and independents are less inclined to take this view: 30% of Republicans and 32% of independents say it will be more important, while pluralities of both groups say it will be about as important as past addresses (49% of independents say this, as do 47% of Republicans).

THEY OWE: $12,245,872,000,000

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Figures-on-government-apf-2178072020.html?x=0&.v=2

Figures on government spending and debt

• Print

On Monday January 25, 2010, 4:04 pm

WASHINGTON (AP) --

Figures on government spending and debt (last six digits are eliminated). The
government's fiscal year runs Oct. 1 through Sept. 30.
Total public debt subject to limit Jan. 22		12,245,872
 Statutory debt limit					12,394,000
Total public debt outstanding Jan. 22			12,302,465
Operating balance Jan. 22				   142,454
Interest fiscal year 2009				   383,365
Interest fiscal year 2008				   451,154
 Deficit fiscal year 2009				 1,417,121
Deficit fiscal year 2008				   454,798
Receipts fiscal year 2009				 2,104,613
Receipts fiscal year 2008				 2,523,642
Outlays fiscal year 2009				 3,521,734
Outlays fiscal year 2008				 2,978,440
 Gold assets in September				    11,041

California: Expulsion for guns in truck overturned by education board

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=13332

California: Expulsion for guns in truck overturned by education board

On Friday, members of the Glenn County Board of Education drew the line at the gates of Willows High School. They ruled that officials in the Willows Unified School District had exceeded their authority when they expelled Gary Tudesko.

Read About It: The Sacramento Bee

Posted: 1/25/2010 9:14:40 AM

"Utah Rising & State Legislators Announce State's Rights Bills Press Conference" is tomorrow, Monday, January 25, 2010 12:00 PM!

	Meetup Reminder Utah County We Surround Them Meetup
Your group has a Meetup tomorrow! You still need to RSVP.

What Utah Rising & State Legislators Announce State's Rights Bills Press Conference When Monday, January 25, 2010 12:00 PM Who 1 Yes / 0 Maybe Where Utah State Capitol 350 N State Street Salt Lake City UT 84114 801-538-1800 RSVP Now YES MAYBE NO

Here's what people are saying about this Meetup Group "Interesting speakers, good information, and encouragement to get involved." — Hope "Because we MUST pull together to change the tide that is destroying America" — Carol Poulson Learn more about this Meetup

Meetup Description "Utah Rising" – Utahns take a stand for the preservation of liberty. Utah's Grassroots Alliance and State Legislators announce 10th Amendment bills. Salt Lake City, January 20, 2010: The Patrick Henry Caucus, The Utah 912 States' Rights Coalition and Utah's Grassroots Alliance have announced their resolve to join with States throughout the nation in proclaiming their 10th Amendment rights in preparation for a grassroots campaign and legislative actions designed to preserve State Sovereignty and the liberty of the people. On Monday, January 25 at 12:00 noon, representatives of several Utah-based community organizations will hold a press conference at the Utah State Capitol (west building, main floor). That day is the first day of the 2010 State Legislative session where members are expected to consider several items of legislation intended to protect and preserve the rights and powers of the people of the state as well as challenge unconstitutional actions and mandates of the federal government. "The United States of America is a Republic, consisting of 50 sovereign states, governed by written principles and the rule of law," said a member of the Alliance. "Never has the rule of law been so twisted and perverted by man as has been those constitutional protections intended to limit the size and scope of America's federal government. We will not be a generation whose own apathy enslaves her posterity. Today, Utahns rise up to civilly fight for the liberty of their children and grandchildren. We invite all Utahns and all Americans to stand shoulder to shoulder with us in this, the battle of our lives." The Patrick Henry Caucus is a national alliance of State Legislators focused on States' Rights legislation. The Utah 912 States' Rights Coalition is an activist community organization focused on 10th Amendment and States' Rights issues. Utah's Grassroots Alliance is a broad coalition which consists of many community organizations in Utah focused on Constitutional government and developing leaders with a commitment to legislate based on the intent of America's founding fathers. For more information about these organizations go to utahrising.org. Press Conference Monday January 25, 2010 Utah State Capitol, west building, main floor Utah Rising

Add info@meetup.com to your address book to receive all your Meetup emails.

You are receiving this email because you are a member of Utah County We Surround Them Meetup.

To manage your email settings, click here.

Questions? You can email Meetup Support at: support@meetup.com
Meetup Inc. PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668

ESPN: "UN's push for Arms Trade Treaty could affect American gun ownership"

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2010/01/espn-uns-push-for-arms-trade-treaty.html

1/23/2010

ESPN: "UN's push for Arms Trade Treaty could affect American gun ownership"

Bush had to fight hard to stop a UN gun control effort. With Obama pushing the other way, it doesn't look promising.

In 2012, the United Nation's will push for the Arms Trade Treaty, which, among other things, will establish goals regarding the ownership and disposition of firearms on a global basis. This new world order is apt to take various forms, but none of them are likely to be good for gun owners in this country. . . .

Obama Approval Index: -18

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Friday, January 22, 2010

Email to a Friend

Advertisement

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18 (see trends). Larry Sabato takes a look at Obama's first year in office.

Later today, Rasmussen Reports will issue a tracking update on the health care issue showing that expectations the legislation will pass have fallen dramatically since Tuesday's election in Massachusetts. Since Nancy Pelosi has indicated that there are not enough votes in the House to pass the Senate proposal, this will be our final tracking update on the current legislation. If the Democrats in Congress develop a new approach for health care legislation, we will resume tracking at that time.

Forty-five percent (45%) believe General Motors will need more government bailouts.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

In the Pennsylvania Senate race, Pat Toomey now leads both Arlen Specter and Joe Sestak. In Arizona, John McCain has opened a big lead over potential challenger J.D. Hayworth. In Georgia, if former Governor Roy Barnes is the Democratic nominee, the race for Governor could begin as a toss-up.

(More Below)

Scott Rasmussen has recently had several columns published in the Wall Street Journal addressing how President Obama is losing independent voters , health care reform, the President's approval ratings, and how Obama won the White House by campaigning like Ronald Reagan. If you'd like Scott Rasmussen to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about Scott's favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.

Rasmussen Reports has released Senate polls for Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. A commentary by Larry Sabato, suggests that if the election were held today, "the Democratic majority in the Senate would be reduced to just 52 seats."

Rasmussen Reports has also released polls on the 2010 governor's races in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.

It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the President's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. It is also important to check the details of question wording when comparing approval ratings from different firms.

(More Below)

Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology).

Pollster.com founder Mark Blumenthal noted that "independent analyses from the National Council on Public Polls, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, the Pew Research Center, the Wall Street Journal and FiveThirtyEight.com have all shown that the horse-race numbers produced by automated telephone surveys did at least as well as those from conventional live-interviewer surveys in predicting election outcomes."

In the 2009 New Jersey Governor's race, automated polls tended to be more accurate than operator-assisted polling techniques. On reviewing the state polling results from 2009, Mickey Kaus offered this assessment, "If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!" During Election 2008, liberal blogger Nate Silver said that the Rasmussen tracking poll "would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island."

Pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have cited our "unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy."

A Fordham University professor rated the national pollsters on their record in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results for your review. In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result, Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased with the stability of our results. On every single day for the last six weeks of the campaign, our daily tracking showed Obama with a stable and solid lead attracting more than 50% of the vote.

An analysis by Pollster.com partner Charles Franklin "found that despite identically sized three-day samples, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll is less variable than Gallup." During Election 2008, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll was the least volatile of all those tracking the race.

In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project both candidates' totals within half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%. (see our 2004 results).

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters--is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members.

Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Over the past five years, the number of Democrats in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has decreased.

Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 37.1% Democrats, 32.4% Republicans, and 30.5% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.

A review of last week's key polls is posted each Saturday morning. Other stats on Obama are updated daily on the Rasmussen Reports Obama By the Numbers page. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls. To get a sense of longer-term trends, check out our month-by-month review of the President's numbers.

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

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

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

UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece

The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position today even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change's retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.

"I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I'm in no mood to oblige them," he told The Times in an interview. "It was a collective failure by a number of people," he said. "I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It's best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip."

Related Links

• UN climate chief admits mistake on glaciers alert

• World misled over glacier meltdown

The IPCC's 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers "disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high".

But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.

The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was "poorly substantiated" in the latest of a series of blows to the panel's credibility.

Dr Pachauri said that the IPCC's report was the responsibility of the panel's Co-Chairs at the time, both of whom have since moved on.

They were Dr Martin Parry, a British scientist now at Imperial College London, and Dr Osvaldo Canziani , an Argentine meteorologist. Neither was immediately available for comment.

"I don't want to blame them, but typically the working group reports are managed by the Co-Chairs," Dr Pachauri said. "Of course the Chair is there to facilitate things, but we have substantial amounts of delegation."

He declined to blame the 25 authors and editors of the erroneous part of the report , who included a Filipino, a Mongolian, a Malaysian, an Indonesian, an Iranian, an Australian and two Vietnamese.

The "co-ordinating lead authors" were Rex Victor Cruz of the Philippines, Hideo Harasawa of Japan, Murari Lal of India and Wu Shaohong of China.

President calls for biggest regulatory overhaul since 1930s...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/44f593ee-06a7-11df-b426-00144feabdc0.html

Obama hammers Wall Street banks

By Tom Braithwaite in Washington and Francesco Guerrera in New York

Published: January 21 2010 16:42 | Last updated: January 22 2010 00:11

The global banking industry was thrown into turmoil on Thursday after President Barack Obama , responding to public rage over the financial crisis, proposed the most far-reaching overhaul of Wall Street since the 1930s.

In reforms that could force the restructuring of some of the biggest names in US finance, including JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, Mr Obama promised that "never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that is too big to fail".

Flanked by Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, who has advocated the move for months, Mr Obama called for banks to be banned from running their own trading desks and "owning, investing in or sponsoring" hedge funds and private equity groups.

Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, who has come under attack from Democrats on Capitol Hill, backed the plan, officials said, even though his own regulatory proposals have stopped well short of the sweeping Volcker reforms.

Republicans responded coolly, but did not reject the proposals out of hand. Richard Shelby, senior Republican on the Senate banking committee, called for more details and new hearings.

Others accused the White House of adopting a populist message to divert attention away from the blow delivered by the Democrats' defeat in the Senate race in Massachusetts.

The measures, which require congressional approval, hark back to the response to the 1929 stock market crash that ushered in the Glass-Steagall Act, separating commercial and investment banking, which remained in law until 1999.

From the blogs

Money Supply: Obama, the banks and Goldman Sachs

John Gapper: Paul Volcker towers over the new Glass-Steagall

FT Alphaville: Live reaction to Obama plan

FT-dot-comment: Hedge funds win and lose from Obama's assault on Wall Street

Shares of the big Wall Street banks fell as Mr Obama announced the proposals, but those of regional banks rose.

Mr Obama called for new rules – beyond current regulations restricting banks from holding no more than 10 per cent of US deposits – that would place unspecified size limits on institutions.

"In recent years, too many financial firms have put taxpayer money at risk by operating hedge funds and private equity funds and making riskier investments to reap a quick reward," said Mr Obama. "And these firms have taken these risks while benefiting from special financial privileges that are reserved only for banks."

Congressional aides and administration officials said a lot of detail remained to be decided. Barney Frank, chairman of the House financial services committee, said he would support new rules if they allowed banks to dispose of newly banned operations over three to five years and thereby prevent a "fire sale".

Bankers said the lack of detail and the likelihood of a protracted debate in Congress would give them the chance both to lobby for changes and to adapt their businesses, with, for example, Goldman possibly giving up the financial holding company status it adopted in the financial crisis.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

• Print article
• Email article
• Order reprints

Pablo Presenting at the Common Sense Rally

Jeff,

This is the annoucement for the Rally tomorrow. I'll be teaching a class on how to become a delegate. I would like to invite you, Jon, and others in the Right Jeff blog etc. to attend.

Could you please forward this invitation? Or post it in the blog?

Thanks,

Pablo

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Utah Republican Party <info@utgop.org>
Date: Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:16 PM
Subject: Common Sense Rally
To: riboldipj@gmail.com

Utah Tea Party and Utah 912 have joined forces with www.utahrising.org      CALL TO ACTION--UTAH COUNTY AND ST. GEORGE RALLIES   COME LEARN HOW TO BECOME A DELEGATE AND VOTE IN THE UTAH STATE AND COUNTY CONVENTIONS!    Utah County Rally When: Saturday, 23 January 2010 Time: 5:00 pm Where: The Pinnacle Building, 1290 South Sandhill Road--Orem, Utah, Behind Hampton Inn   Come listen to exciting speakers like Deidre Henderson discuss the conservative principles and how YOU too can REALLY make a difference in the upcoming Caucus meetings and Convention. Live music, Constitutional Class.   St. George Rally When: Saturday, 23 January 2010 Time: 6:00-8:30 pm Where: Gardner Auditorium, Dixie State College Exciting Speakers: David Kirkham, Morgan Philpot, Holly Richardson, Gene Von Wagoner   We have organized 12 Tea Parties and 912 rallies here in Utah this past year--thousands have attended.  This CALL TO ACTION event is NOT A CAMPAIGN RALLY.  After each of our protests and rallies, everyone keeps asking, "What's next?  How can I make a REAL difference?"  Come to the rally and we will show you how you can become part of a delegation with real power.     * The secret to making local and national political change is with YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBORS.   * Utah has a unique situation which gives us an enormous opportunity--we have a DELEGATE system with DIRECT and MAJOR impact on Utah Elections.   * Delegates represent their neighborhood precinct in the State and County Conventions by voting for party candidates BEFORE the primary.   * If a candidate wins 60% of the delegate votes at the convention they become the party nominee and there is NO PRIMARY election--the winner immediately advances to the general election!  This delegate process levels the playing field for anyone who wants to run for office.   BRING A FRIEND!  Yes, YOU can make a difference!   Event Contact:  David Kirkham 801-377-8224 saltlaketeaparty@gmail.com   Utah County Contact: Becky Pirente 801.362.7392 Brandon Beckham 801.358.6776   Sponsored by:  Utah Tea Party, Utah 912, Patrick Henry Caucus, Restoration of America, Eagle Forum, Thomas Jefferson Center, United Women's Forum, Roots of Freedom, Proper Role of Government, The Naked Republic, Liberty for Citizens

Forward email This email was sent to riboldipj@gmail.com by info@utgop.org. Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Email Marketing by Utah Republican Party | 117 E South Temple | Salt Lake City | UT | 84111