Monday, November 30, 2009

The Problem with Iran

I really wanted to write about the now debunked myth of man-made global warming. With the revelations over the last week, the best you can say is that man-made global warming is a scientific theory that has yet to have any serious scientific data to support it. However, as fun as that would be to write, there is a much more significant and deadly issue facing the West.

Iran made two very significant announcements over the weekend. The first you have probably heard about by now. The second seemed to miss most of the big news outlets.

First, Iran announced they will build 10 new enrichment facilities. The first five will begin in the next two months. The sites for these five have already been selected. The sites for the next five will be selected over the next two months. These 1o facilities, along with the one the West has known about, and the one the West just found out about, would give Iran the capability to make 160 nuclear bombs a year.

First-and-a-half, Iran has said time and time again that if it had a nuclear weapon, it would detonate it in Israel even knowing Israel would strike back. Why? First, Ahmadenjad believes that he can create a world Armageddon that would bring the 12th Iman out of hiding. Second, Ahmadenjad also says there are more Muslims in the world than Jews, so he can win a war of attrition.

Second, also from this weekend, Iran approved a bill that will send $20 Million to militant groups who "oppose the West". The majority of this is probably going to go to Hamas and Hezbollah. Both groups are known terrorists groups and both are quite happy to lob any number of rockets, bombs, missiles, and suicide bombers at Israel. Ask yourself, "What would happen if Hamas or Hezbollah got their hands on a nuclear warhead, even a "dirty" one?"

Health Care and Global Warming are very important debates. However, inaction on Iran will render these two issue moot. Threats about Iran not joining the world community or facing serious sanctions this time won't cut it any longer. What will? Stay tuned for the next article...

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone out there. I hope you and your family have a safe and happy Thanksgiving.

I am thankful for my family, my wife, and kids. Having a newborn baby, I am especially thankful to have everyone healthy and happy.

While we have debated a number of political issues on here, I am thankful to live in a nation that allows this free political discourse even when we don't agree with the administration.

Have a good holiday, and don't eat toooo much turkey.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Book Review: Why Obama's Government Takeover of Health Care Will Be a Disaster

A few weeks ago, I mentioned a new series of political pamphlets that were about to be published. I received the first one, and have been fairly impressed. Encounter Books is releasing a series of the pamphlets (at around $6 each). They are short and designed to be read in one sitting. The first one in the series is Why Obama's Government Takeover of Health Care Will Be a Disaster (Encounter Broadsides) written by David Gratzer.

First the book. The format is very interesting. I have ordered the next two in this series and I am interested to see how they look. This one is 44 pages, and is about the height and width of a Reader's Digest. However, the paper is pretty high quality. I have a habit of highlighting and writing in my non-fiction books and the paper works very good for this.

Mr. Gratzer is a physician and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He has written previous books on medicine and health care and has appeared in The Weekly Standard, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. He also draws from personal experience in this book.

The book is really good. The first 31 pages list the problems with Obamacare, citing specific evidence from other nations that have some form of socialized medicine. The last 13 pages list ten points that could be used to reform health care in the United States.

Mr. Gratzer points out that government run health care has its own problems:

In Alberta, Canada's wealthiest province, 50 percent of outpatients waited more than 41 days for an MRI scan in 2008. In Saskatchewan, 10 percent of patients awaiting knee-replacement surgery waited 616 days or longer for care. In Nova Scotia, 50 percent of hip-replacement patients waited 201 days or longer for surgery. Wait times for these and other procedures don't factor in any wait to get a referral from a family doctor -- and more than 4 million Canadians can't find a family doctor because of a national doctor shortage created by government cutbacks to medical schools in the 1990's. The situation is so dire that some townships hold lotteries, with winners gaining access to a family doc. {emphasis in the original}

The book contains other examples of problems with government run health care from European nations as well. The solutions provided in the afterward include ideas such as ending defensive medicine, revamping the FDA and the estimated $1 Billion to get a single drug to reach the market, and making health insurance more like other kinds of insurance. Finally, the book ends with a case study in a successful attempt to revamp health care at the business level: Safeway. They were able to get a "net zero percent (0%) gain in per-employee health insurance costs. " Other businesses had an almost 40% increase over the same time period.

In spite of it's long title, Why Obama's Government Takeover of Health Care Will be a Disaster is a very good read. It can be read in one sitting and is full of useful information in the health care debate. It should be considered a primer in the health care debate.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Liberal Fascism, Chapter 6 Review

A few weeks ago I mentioned that Red State was running a new book club. There are weekly discussions on each of the assigned chapters. The reading material so far has included A Message to Garcia and Liberal Fascism. I'm finding it pretty interesting, and I thought I would mention it on here one more time. The assignments each week have been about one chapter (around 40 pages). Participants are suppose to write a quick post about what they read for the group to discuss. My post for this week is below. On the other site, it's assumed you have read the chapter, but I think this post brings out some interesting points without a full reading of the chapter.

I hope you take a moment to check out Red State and the book club. Full details of their project can be found here. Let me know if I should explain anything from below.


Liberal Fascism Chapter 6 and the Second Coming

I have thought for a while now that the left’s obsession with “man made global warming” looked much more like a religion than any sort of scientific debate. After reading Chapter 6 of Liberal Fascism, I understand that it’s not global warming that is the religion, it is the entire spectrum of hot button issues the left defends.

Mr. Goldberg argues throughout the chapter that there was a religious faith in the 60’s by radicals and liberals in the God state. Only through the state could man’s greatest potential be realized. This faith included their savior, JFK. I am young enough that I only know what I was taught in school about JFK. What I learned there was that he was assassinated in Dallas, and that the nation wept. In school I was never taught any of things he may have done as President to become a great figure. Just that he was, and that it was a national tragedy that he died.

…after Kennedy’s murder, Kennedy the nationalistic Third Wayer was replaced by Kennedy the fighting liberal. The JFK Camelot eclipsed the one who tried to assassinate Patrice Lumumba and Fidel Castro.

Woodrow Wilson’s grandson Dean Francis Sayre delivered a sermon at the Washington National Cathedral in homage to the fallen leader. “We have been present at a new crucifixion,” he told the assembled dignitaries. “All of us,” he explained, “have had a part in the slaying of our President. It was the good people who crucified our Lord, and not merely those who acted as executioners.”

Mr. Goldberg spends a significant amount of time comparing Kennedy’s actual presidency with what it is described as today by the left. Anytime people look back on history, there can be a desire to white wash events. The left seems to have forgotten the white wash and gone with a total re-write. But what struck me the most is the number of descriptions of Kennedy by the left that could equally be applied to President Obama by the liberal media today. For example:

In 1964 James Reston summarized the newly minted liberal nostalgia for America’s Greek god of a president. “He was a story-book President, younger and more handsome than mortal politicians, remote even from his friends, graceful, almost elegant with poetry on his tongue and a radiant young woman at his side.”

Or later on…

Recall the key themes to Mussolini’s cult of personality: youth, action, expertise, vigor, glamor, military service. Mussolini cast himself as the leader of a youth movement, a new generation empowered through intellect and expertise to break with the old categories of left and right. JFK’s stirring inaugural spoke of “a new generation of Americans –born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage.”

Both of these passages were describing JFK’s legacy, but they could equally describe President Obama’s current cult-like following. How many times have we heard about President Obama’s story book campaign? A political “outsider” who came out of nowhere. And keeping Michelle Obama in the back of your mind, do you think the press wouldn’t use the first passage to describe Obama today? Surely we can all agree that during the election, the “cult of personality” was in full effect on President Obama. We were told that the youth of the nation would carry Senator Obama to victory. And even though the youth turned out in very comparable numbers to previous elections, I have heard news stories just this week discussing what the youth will do in 2010 after getting their President elected last year.

So I ask, “Is President Obama the second coming in the religion of the left?” His polling numbers are continuing to drop. However, people seem to go out of their way to say, “I disagree with the President’s policies, and not with him.” When Rush Limbaugh said he hoped the President failed, the left went into a fury. Many of the bad decisions of this administration have been placed at the feet of Obama’s staff, and not the President. Have we really forgotten who runs the office, and who is ultimately responsible for their decisions? Or being the second coming of the liberal God-state, is it simply forbidden to dispute President Obama?

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Holder Defends Terrorists Trials in New York

I've written two pieces this week on Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try terrorists in New York. In the first, I argue that Holder and President Obama don't understand Terrorism. In the second, I point out that when we have tried terrorists in courts in the past, we have unintentionally given intelligence to terrorist still overseas.

Today I want to look at a couple of quotes from Eric Holder's testimony this week before the Senate. In this testimony, AG Holder is trying to defend his decision to try terrorists in New York. I think there were two very important things to come out of this testimony. Here is the first. For those of you who don't like FOX News, I apologize, but I wanted to show this statement by Mr. Holder in his own words.

I believe this clip is important because it rejects a defense of Mr. Holder I have heard a lot this week. A number of people defending his decision have said, "We aren't really at war right now." Holder destroy's that argument with this quote:

I know that we are at war. I know that we are at war with a viscous enemy that targets our soldiers on the battlefields of Afghanistan and our civilians on the streets here at home.

I am not a fan of Senator Lindsey Graham. However, he did his homework, and really took the Attorney General apart in this clip. Thanks to Moe Lane at Red State for initially posting this.

Again, there is a very specific point that is important here. Sen. Graham asks Mr. Holder what precedent there is for this decision. Mr. Holder can't answer him, and isn't even prepared for the question. That means the AG didn't know what precedent there was, and made this decision based on other considerations that had nothing to do with precedent.

AG Holder has said this week that this will be a slam dunk case. If this case is suppose to show that we are willing to give terrorists the world over the benefit of the doubt, and try them in civilian courts, how can this be a slam dunk? Nothing in a civilian court is guaranteed. Eric Holder has said that if the terrorists are acquitted, they will not be released into the country. If a judge orders them released, how can the AG not release them into our country? Eric Holder has also said that if for some reason he doesn't get a conviction, he has other charges that he can try them on to get a conviction. Does this sound like the US showing the world how we stand behind our civilian court system? Also keep in mind that the same day Holder announced KSM would stand trial in New York, he announced that the men behind the USS Cole attack would face a military tribunal. None of these statements, or the ones I provide clips for above make any sense if the goal is to get a civilian conviction from these terrorists.

However, if the AG's goal is to put the previous administration on trial, they suddenly make perfect sense. Any good defense attorney will know that if he doesn't have a good defense, he should put the U.S. Government on trial, and try to get his client's off that way. Both President Obama and AG Holder know this. So it looks to me like the simplest answer is that they aren't concerned with the outcome of the trial. I am sure in their minds they have already gotten a conviction. What they are really concerned with is putting President Bush and his administration on trial. This political stunt may well backfire on them.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Terrorists in Civillain Courts: What Does History Say?

On Sunday, I posted a blog on why I thought President Obama and Attorney General Holder grossly misunderstand terrorism. We are told by the administration that our nation has a very successful history of trying terrorism in civilian courts. Seattle Dave even pointed in the comments for my post that three conservatives sided with the administration and said the following:

Over the last two decades, federal courts constituted under Article III of the U.S. Constitution have proven capable of trying a wide array of terrorism cases, without sacrificing either national security or fair trial standards.

I thought it might be helpful to look at three high profile cases to see if this is really the case.

Case One: The Blind Sheik

Omar Abdel Rahman, also known as "the Blind Sheik" was tried for terrorism in the 1990's. It was alleged that he was behind the original World Trade Center bombing in 1993. His trial was a very high profile event. He was not convicted of terrorism but was instead found guilty of "seditious conspiracy". This is an easier charge to prove in a court of law than terrorism. It was believed the Blind Sheik was involved in planning 15 bomb attacks through out New York.

The trial for the Blind Sheik is believed to have provided valuable intelligence for Al-Queda. Michael Mukasey, previous Attorney General, and a man who presided over the trial of the Blind Sheik, writing last month illustrated this with an example:

...the government was required to disclose, as it is routinely in conspiracy cases, the identity of all known co-conspirators, regardless of whether they are charged as defendants. One of those co-conspirators, relatively obscure in 1995, was Osama bin Laden. It was later learned that soon after the government's disclosure the list of unindicted co-conspirators had made its way to bin Laden in Khartoum, Sudan, where he then resided. He was able to learn not only that the government was aware of him, but also who else the government was aware of.

This is just one example of court evidence providing valuable intelligence to terrorists. The Blind Sheik's trial also had the distinction of getting the defense attorney in trouble. Lynne Stewart was a member of the Sheik's defense team, and was convicted of passing messages to the Sheik's followers in foreign countries inciting them to perform terrorist attacks.

Case Two: Zacarias Moussaoui

The alleged "20th Hijacker" also had a few intelligence problems. Moussaoui represented himself in court, made a mockery of the trial, and even verbally attacked the judge during the proceedings. Since Moussaoui represented himself, the prosecution had to turn over their case to the "defendants lawyer" under discovery. According to CNBC News, the government admitted they turned over classified documents to Moussaoui that he shouldn't have had access too. This is important because KSM has decided to represent himself in the upcoming New York trials.

Case Three: Ramzi Yousef

Like the Sheik,Ramzi Yousef was also found guilty of "seditious activities" in spite of being a known terrorists and in spite of being involved in terrorists activities. Once again, material presented in court helped our enemies overseas. From Michael Mukasey:

Again, during the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, an apparently innocuous bit of testimony in a public courtroom about delivery of a cell phone battery was enough to tip off terrorists still at large that one of their communication links had been compromised. That link, which in fact had been monitored by the government and had provided enormously valuable intelligence, was immediately shut down, and further information lost.

We have been told by President Obama, Attorney General Holder, some conservatives, and other officials that our court system can handle trying terrorist. We have been told they can do it successfully, and without putting our security at risk. In these three specific cases, that didn't happen. In these high profile cases the government was unable to prevent sensitive information from getting in the hands of our enemies. In these cases the government failed to prosecute terrorists in civilian courts, "...without sacrificing either national security or fair trial standards."

Can we really expect the government to do better when trying the plotters of the 9/11 attacks?

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Obama Doesn't Understand Terrorism

We learned two very important things about President Obama on Friday. The first, he has no understanding of terrorism. The second, he has no understanding of just how bad our deficit is.

Eric Holder announced that the five men accused of planning the September 11th attacks will be tried in civilian court in New York. This announcement was made while President Obama was in Asia, and unable to field questions about this decision. What Holder and Obama both fail to recognize is there is no good outcome that justifies bringing them to the United States to stand trial in a civilian court. I want to look at the best outcome Holder / Obama could hope for and why it shows a lack of understanding of terrorism and our deficit.

The "Best Case" Scenario

The best possible outcome from trying these terrorists in New York is that they will be found guilty, be sentenced to death and quickly executed. This is probably the exact same outcome if they were tried in a military tribunal. In the "best case" scenario, there will be no press coverage of the proceedings so there will be no live broadcasts of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed denouncing the United States and our "imperialist" invasion of the Middle East. This case also assumes that there will be no disruptions or attacks on the courthouse during the trial. We are told if this happens, our image will improve world wide. The same people who tell us this are the ones who told us electing Obama would improve our standing world wide. After almost ten months in office, Iran is closer than ever to getting a nuclear weapon, Chavez is expanding his influence into surrounding nations, we are belittling our allies in the press, abandoning them in Latin America and Eastern Europe (not to mention Israel), and our "new, better image" failed to land the Olympics for the President' s home town. I'm not sure this is going to help our international image.

A Lack of Understanding Terrorism

The New York Times Mark Mazzetti writes today:

Not long after he was rousted from bed and seized in a predawn raid in Pakistan in March 2003, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave his captors two demands: He wanted a lawyer, and he wanted to be taken to New York. After a nearly seven-year odyssey that took him to secret CIA jails in Europe and a U. S. military prison in Cuba, Mohammed is getting his wishes.

Who says we don't negotiate with terrorist? Captured on the battlefield? Wait out the administration, and maybe your dreams will come true.

The Obama Administration was accused of having a "pre-9/11 mentality" during the campaign. Their actions on Friday show this was an accurate charge. Civilian courts are not designed to try terrorist captured in the worlds hell-holes by our military. Our courts are use to miranda rights and constitutional protections. These are not guaranteed to military enemies. Al-Queda has declared a war against the United States since before 1996. Iran (acting through Hamas and Hezbollah) has been at war with us since at least 1979. These are self declared wars involving military actions against civilian and military targets. You do not defeat that by capturing a few of the enemies soldiers and trying them in court.

In a court of law, KSM and his co-conspirators will be allowed to speak, and may make sudden outbursts just to get attention. They may be allowed to cross examine their accusers, their lawyers will probably challenge the way they were handled since their capture. Their lawyers are almost certain to move for a dismissal of charges based solely on the reported torture in the media. To avoid this, the Bush Administration, working with Congress and the Supreme Court, created a legal military tribunal system to deal with terrorist captured in foreign lands.

During these trials, how much testimony or evidence will be discussed that might provide intelligence to our enemies? If these trials are covered in court, do we really think the Amerian audience will be the only one watching? What might be revealed in an open court that might jeopardize soldiers and agents in the field?

KSM and at least one other of the terrorists Holder and Obama want to try in New York have admitted guilt and have asked to be executed. Eric Holder says he hopes to seek the death penalty. Why should we waste the money a New York trial will cost when we can arrive at the same verdict with a military tribunal. Which brings up...

A Lack of Understanding of Our Debt

The President seems to have no idea of the cost a trial in New York for the masterminds of the September 11th attacks will cost. The O.J. Simpson circus cost an estimated $9 Million in the 1990's. I expect by the end of the day, the trails for these five will total $100's of Millions. How long will a trial of this nature go on? months? years? This would represent a great target for terrorists like the one from Fort Hood, or Al-Queda. During the entire time, the courthouse, judge, prosecutor, jurors, and defendants will need security. Is there anyone that thinks this will be free?

The defense lawyers are likely to seek any sort of delay or extra trail they can get. How long can this trail be delayed? Anyone associated with any of these special sessions or pre-trail events will need security. Any location will need extra security. What if the defense lawyers successfully lobby to put the soldiers that captured these men on the stand. How much will it cost to get them to and from New York?

Finally, A Worst Case Scenario.

What if the worst happens. Michael Goodwin writes today"

The worst-case outcome is frightening. The beasts who helped kill nearly 3,000 Americans could walk free, while the brave agents who protected the country get locked up.

What if our courts declare some sort of mistrial and order these men set free? Forget whether they would be freed here in the United States or flown back to other countries. If any one of these five is set free by a civilian court, we will give a terrorist who helped plan the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil his freedom. Could any political stunt by the President really be worth this possibility? Could you imagine a photo op with KSM walking around Ground Zero? What about a terrorist being set free while an agent or soldier is locked up pending a trial on their techniques for capturing these terrorists?

There is a real chance that future generations will look back at this decision as Obama's biggest mistake. I am afraid the President and his Attorney General just took one giant step towards making us much more vulnerable to other terrorist attacks. And they did it to what is going to be a huge tax payer burden.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Who cares if it isn't in the Constitution??

I found the following clip at the Heritage Foundation. This is a Democratic Senator from Hawaii being interviewed by CNS News. It's a rare instance where a politician gives an honest answer to a simple question, and it really should scare the hell out of everyone.

If the Constitution doesn't give Congress the power to do it, then they can't do it! The scariest part is were Senator Akaka says they should do this without Constitutional authority because they want," help citizens in our country to live a good life."

If this doesn't scare you, then you don't understand what he just said. If you're a liberal or a Democrat, imagine a Congress with an overwhelming majority of conservative Christians passing legislation that has no Constitutional authority, but they want to do it so that the citizens live a good life. Would you tolerate that?

A Small Taste of the "Public Option"

On yesterday's Rush Limbaugh Show, Rush featured a letter to the editor that was sent to the Southeast Missourian. If you wish to read it for yourself, go to the original here. In the letter, a reader describes their experience with trying to get the H1N1 vaccine. This is very instructive because this is an example of what a government run health care plan, or "public option" might look like. From the letter:

The new era of government control over our lives and freedoms has begun. This week, it got personal, and I felt helpless.

The doctor overseeing my health care advised me to get an H1N1 flu shot. I've been under a six-year treatment program for a chronic infection, plus I have heart and lung problems. Therefore, I am considered a high risk. Fortunately, my doctor had three shots available, but I would have to get approval from my county health department. Much to my surprise, the woman at the health department apologized and told me that even though I was a senior citizen at high risk, the health department had been instructed to approve shots only for children and pregnant mothers. I asked when a shot for my situation might be available. "We really don't know. Check back with us sometime in December."

What? The terrorist detainees in Gitmo are getting shots this month. Why not a high-risk senior citizen?

Mr. Obama, this is what we call health care rationing, which you claim won't happen under a government-run health care program.

Here is a case where a high risk senior citizen was denied a H1N1 vaccine because the county health board employee hadn't been instructed to make them available to high risk individuals yet. In a government bureaucracy, employees follow their instructions and don't typically question the wisdom of these instructions. If you are upset with the layers of bureaucracy in your current plan, just imagine when you add to that plan the government' s bureaucracy.

To continue this example of poor government health care, the Pentagon said earlier this month that H1N1 vaccines would be given to detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Press Secretary Bryan Gibbs quickly said there were no vaccines at the base, and there were none heading there. To further muddy the waters, the Pentagon confirmed this week that 300 doses of the vaccine had arrived at "Gitmo" (regardless of what Mr. Gibbs said). The current speculation is that 300 doses is too small of a quantity for any to go to detainees. I suspect in a month or so there may be an article quietly stating that more vaccines had arrived at Gitmo.

Whether you personally believe the detainees should get vaccinated or not, this is an example of the federal government making a health care decision based purely on politics. The Pentagon believed it,"...[had] an obligation to care for persons in its custody..." The White House didn't like the political fallout of taxpayer money providing flu vaccines to terrorists. The policy appears to have been changed. This took about a week and a half.

Now I ask you: if the Federal government was in charge of a much larger portion of the nations health care and they made a decision that got poor coverage in the press, do you think they might change that decision based purely on politics or polling data? Or do you really think they would stick to their guns and make the decision purely on medical reasoning?

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Fun Facts on Pelosi's Healthcare.

If you are like me, most people, and certainly members of congress, you haven't had a chance to read the almost 2,000 page health care bill Congress passed Saturday night. We have seen a number of surprises in rushed through legislation over the past year and I am sure this one will include a number of surprises no one knows about right now. However, the Heritage Foundation has done a detailed analysis of the bill and found a few "fun facts" you may want to know about before your Senator votes on this bill. The information below is from the Heritage Foundations webmemo #2684 "A Closer Look at the House Democrats' Health Care Bill". Considering only one Republican voted for it, I think this is still a good title.

If you only remember one of the details I am going to discuss, remember this one: You will probably not be able to keep your current insurance. The President has said a number of times that you can keep your insurance. This is simply not true. The President either hasn't paid attention to the bill, or is speaking of a different bill that has yet to be introduced. First, the bill provides incentives for companies to not provide health care. From the Heritage Foundation research:

The bill also imposes a new 8 percent payroll tax on employers who do not cover specified percentages of their employee's health insurance...since the amount of this tax would be lower than the cost of providing health insurance (especially for low-income workers), many employers would opt to pay the tax and not offer health plans, disrupting their employees' existing coverage.

Secondly, the bill creates a new "Health Choices Commissioner". This Commissioner can decide what services insurance provides are forced to cover, and what services they are prohibited from covering. As such, the Health Choices Commissioner will be able to dictate the services your insurance provides. This may or may not be something you want, but I am sure there will be changes to your coverage from the Commissioner.

The "public option" is back in the bill. The bill structures what employees would be eligible to participate and when. The rates of the "public option" are to be "negotiated" with medical providers. However the CBO estimates that if the "public option" rates were truly negotiated, the "public option" would cost more than most private insurances. As such, I leave to you to guess what the term "negotiated" means in this bill.

The final fun fact tonight is the price tag. President Obama has set a goal of $900 Billion for any health care bill. The CBO has estimated this bill at between $1.05 and $1.3 Trillion, slightly higher than the President' s commitment. However, this doesn't reflect the actual price of the bill. Because the bill won't take effect until 2014, the Heritage Foundation points out:

...although the [CBO] score is technically a 10-year score, it is not a 10-year cost under full implementation. A full 10-year cost puts a total close to $2.4 trillion.

Over the coming weeks and months these three facts will be disputed and glossed over. Remember, there is a good chance your local Senator has never read the bill, nor has any plans too. I would encourage you to read the Heritage Foundations report. I only covered three of the biggest problems with the Health Care bill. You may find more you don't like.

Friday, November 06, 2009

Unemployment breaks 10%

If you follow the news at all, you heard a lot yesterday regarding the shooting at Fort Hood. As more information becomes available, I may or may not write about it here. This grizzly news did hide some economic news: The U.S. is not over 10% unemployment. This is the first time it has crossed 10% since 1983. A Fox News article this morning had two other cautionary statements:

Counting those who have settled for part-time jobs or stopped looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 17.5 percent, the highest on records dating from 1994.


Economists say it could climb as high as 10.5 percent next year because employers remain reluctant to hire.
In the middle of all this is talk of a possible Stimulus Part II. Looking at how much we spent to still have over 10% unemployment, I'm not sure a Stimulus Part II is any thing other than throwing money that our government, and our taxpayers, and our grandchildren, don't have.