Stop Obamacare Now.

It's easy to feel that Washington ignores your voice. With every major poll showing the majority of Americans oppose Obamacare, the Democrats are pushing on and trying to force the American public into Government planned health care. This week, they are trying to pass a shell bill that they can send to President Obama to sign. They payoffs and kickbacks will be included in another bill.

There is still time to stop this bill. Remember, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress wanted this passed last year. However, the American public has fought this tooth and nail. It isn't too late. Want to voice your opinion to your local representative and to those Democrats who are having second thoughts? Try Free Our Healthcare Now. You have to provide your contact information so they can verify no one is spamming the system. You input your name and address, and Free Our Healthcare Now will provide you with a form letter you can send members of Congress to express your concern. You can edit the form letter for your specific concerns.

The American people have stopped other bills under other President's. We can stop this one too, but YOU have to act!

Will Government Healthcare Cover Everything?

When I started college, my step-father left work with a disability. He applied to his insurance provider and was rejected. He had lost his job, and this disability would mean a source of income for him. In the end, the insurance company caved when my step-father got a lawyer. Who was this evil insurance company? United Healthcare? Cigna? Kaiser? Nope, it was the U.S. government. My step-father was fighting to get Social Security disability.


Pop-quiz: Who denies more insurance claims than any other insurance provider? The U. S. government. A 2008 study by the American Medical Association found that Medicare denied more claims both in number and percentage than any private insurance company. The study found that Medicare actually denies almost double the percentage of claims as most other insurance companies including such giants as Cigna, United Healthcare and Humana.


Sarah Palin made headlines by claiming there would be "death panels" in the Democrat health care bill. These panels would decide who receives treatment and who doesn't. Truthfully, these panels are already in place at Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. These groups already decide whose claim they will reject and whose they will pay for. I challenge my readers to ask any Medicare / Medicaid customer they know this question: Does Medicare or Medicaid pay for every doctor's visit, every treatment, and every prescription you want it to? I will bet the vast majority of them will give you a resounding "No!".


I bring this up only to illustrate a point that is lost in the current health care debate: under a government run plan, you will not be able to get every service, treatment, and prescription you want. Ask the current government insurance customers if you think I'm lying.

Temporary Unemployment Benefits – Now for 99 Weeks!

Unemployment benefits have been in the United States in one form or another since 1932. For most states, the maximum benefit period was 26 weeks. However, you can now draw unemployment benefits for 99 weeks in some states. That's just less than two years. If you lost your job through "no fault of your own", then you would be able to stay out of work for 99 weeks and receive a check from the government. Of course this check isn't as large as your standard paycheck, but it is a paycheck. The government has extended this benefit period through a number of "emergency extensions" that are set to run through the current economic crisis.

A few weeks ago, Senator Jim Bunning (Republican –Kentucky) objected to a bill that included an extension to the unemployment benefits. This was billed as another heartless Republican trying to screw the common man. However, Bunning had a legitimate concern. Early in February, President Obama signed into law a Paygo bill. This means any new spending must be offset with some sort of savings to pay for the bill. Democrats in the Senate labeled the bill an emergency bill meaning it is exempted from Paygo (for the record, every bill the Democrats have tried to pass since Paygo passed has been considered an emergency bill). However, Bunning had a solution: take the funds from the unspent portion of the Stimulus bill. That would be approximately $15 Billion for the recent bill out of the $787 Billion stimulus bill.

Not every Republican supported Bunning in this effort. John Kyl said that while he didn't agree with holding up the bill, he did feel that Senator Bunning had a point. According to the Washington Post, "…about 11.4 million out-of-work people now collect unemployment compensation, at a cost of $10 billion a month. Half of them have been receiving payments for more than six months, the usual insurance limit. But under multiple extensions enacted by the federal government in response to the downturn, workers can collect the payments for as long as 99 weeks in states with the highest unemployment rates -- the longest period since the program's inception." Also according to the Post," …14.9 million jobless Americans have been out of work an average of 29.7 weeks, just below January's 30.2-week average. Those levels are the highest since the government began keeping those records in the 1950s…"

The point of this post is not that we should stop all unemployment benefits. My point is that 99 weeks is very excessive. Our Senate and Congress can't figure how to pay for an extension to the program, let alone the full 99 weeks for those people on it. When they are offered a chance to pay for it, they resort to dirty political tactics to charge the bill to the taxpayer credit card. Our Congress and our President are fighting the wrong problem. If they would learn to drop their white whale of a Health Care bill, and focus on creating jobs, we wouldn't need a 99 week unemployment benefit period.

More Census Dollars at Work

I was watching the race here in Atlanta on TV this weekend and saw the new Census 2010 car:


This photo is from the official census website. As you can see, the census is sponsoring more than one vehicle.

If you're not familiar with NASCAR, a full vehicle sponsorship (as opposed to a smaller sticker) can run millions of dollars. The census website states that the sponsorship for three races for this car costs $1.2 Million. According to the website, the census hopes that this sponsorship will encourage people to mail their censorship forms in. According to the website, "for every 1 percent increase in mail response, taxpayers will save an estimated $85 million. Those funds would otherwise be required to send census takers to collect responses in person from households that don't mail back the form.”


I have to admit, I am a little fuzzy on the math here. If I receive a census form and don't mail it back, they will send someone specifically to my house? They state that a "1 percent increase in mail response," will save taxpayers millions. What is that increase in numbers? Is that 1,000 forms? 100,000 forms? 1,000,000 forms?


We all know we are in tough economic times. Am I really the only person that thinks paying for a NASCAR sponsorship in addition to the silly superbowl ad is a bad idea?

Global Warming Comes to Atlanta

A picture is worth a thousand words. Global warming came to my neighborhood today...

Do You Know Basic Civics?

I first heard about this story on the Rush Limbaugh show today. I was simply appalled. A conservative non-profit group recently released The Shaping of the American Mind: The Diverging Influences of the College Degree & Civic Learning on American Beliefs. This report sought,"... to measure for the first time the impact that earning a bachelor’s degree and acquiring additional knowledge of America’s history and institutions exerts on public opinion." The results were not good. The group, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, administered a basic civics test to some 14,000 college students (half were freshmen, half were seniors). They also got a number of elected officials to take the test.

If you want to take the test yourself, you can at this site. I took the test and scored an 83%. According to ISI, 71% of Americans failed the test. The average score was 54.2%. I thought many of the questions were very basic. The very first question is a great example (this is copied from the site, so the bullets don't work):

1) Which of the following are the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence?

A. life, liberty, and property

B. honor, liberty, and peace

C. liberty, health, and community

D. life, respect, and equal protection

E. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

I am embarrassed that this question could cause anyone trouble. However, 30% of the elected officials who took this quiz got the answer wrong. Here's another one:

3) What are the three branches of government?

A. executive, legislative, judicial

B. executive, legislative, military

C. bureaucratic, military, industry

D. federal, state, local

51% of Americans who took the quiz missed this problem as well. Some of the other stats are equally embarrassing. To be fair, there are a few questions on the test that are a little more difficult, such as:

14) The Puritans:

A. opposed all wars on moral grounds

B. stressed the sinfulness of all humanity

C. believed in complete religious freedom

D. colonized Utah under the leadership of Brigham Young

E. were Catholic missionaries escaping religious persecution

(The answer is B, and this is one of the questions I missed)

The bulk of the questions should really be easy to anyone who has graduated junior high. The problem is that we have gotten away from teaching basic civics to our students. There are any number of explanations for this, but none of them are acceptable. If our children don't understand how the government works, or even their basic rights, how can we expect them to govern themselves and to carry freedom forward to the next generation? Being a citizen of the world means nothing if you don't understand your own country and heritage.

This represents a pretty big problem for our future. If our children don't know the rules the government plays by, how do they know when the government has overstepped its boundaries? How do they recognize tyranny, even a "benevolent" one?

Global Warming: Back to the Drawing Board

If you are a devoted believer in man-made catastrophic global warming, this will be a hard post for you to read. They say sunshine is the best disinfectant, so know that this is written in an effort to help you. The latest news is that some global warming supporters are asking for the movement to start over.

There was a meeting yesterday of 150 climate scientists. At the meeting, Brittan's official Meteorological Office (also known as the Met Office) encouraged climate scientists to produce,"… a new common trove of global temperature data that is open to public scrutiny and 'rigorous' peer review." According to Fox News, this new effort would:

1. "verifiable datasets starting from a common databank of unrestricted data"

2. "methods that are fully documented in the peer reviewed literature and open to scrutiny;"

3. "a set of independent assessments of surface temperature produced by independent groups using independent methods,"

4. "comprehensive audit trails to deliver confidence in the results;"

5. "robust assessment of uncertainties associated with observational error, temporal and geographical in homogeneities."

This sounds like a very good attempt to make global warming a legitimate science. The only problem is the Met Office is assuming the results of the data before it collects it. Fox News quoted the Met Office as saying, "…we do not anticipate any substantial changes in the resulting global and continental-scale trends." If that's true, then why go through the effort? Shouldn't the science go where the data leads it and not draw conclusions ahead of time?

The real problem, and the reason for the exercise, is that serious questions have been raised about global warming in the last few weeks and months. There are no good answers for these questions. The Met and other global warming supporters need something to make their favorite cause look real. There have been a number of black eyes given to the supporters of man-made global warming in recent months. Here is a partial list:

1. Leaked emails from the University of East Anglia showed where prominent global warming scientists in the U.K. and the U.S. failed to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

2. These same emails showed an effort on the part of these scientist to prevent any dissenting views from being published in peer reviewed journals. To be clear: this was a political tactic, and not one used to debate scientific findings.

3. The Chief of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admitted that much of the data used to create the now infamous "hockey stick" graph shown in Al Gore's movie, and relied on in the IPCC report put out by the United Nations, has been lost.

4. Phil Jones also is on the record admitting there is no "statistically significant" global warming in the last 15 years. This isn't my claim, this is the director of one of the largest bastions protecting the theory of man-made global warming. Mr. Jones admitted in the same interview that two previous periods (1910 to 1940 and 1975 to 1998) both showed similar warming trends.

5. The 2007 IPCC report released by the United Nations has been exposed to have included un-reviewed claims and used the reports from activist organizations without reviewing their accuracy. The IPCC had to recently retract a statement from the report claiming that the Himalayan Glaciers would disappear by 2035 knowing the statement was false when it was placed in the report. The UN has claimed the statement was inserted,"…purely to put political pressure on world leaders."

6. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) has asked the Department of Justice to launch an investigation into the activities of Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State and Dr. James Hansen of NASA. Senator Inhofe argues that recent revelations concerning global warming show that both of these individuals may be guilty of research misconduct and may have broken the law. I don't know if the Obama administration will pursue this, but it is one more strike against two of the leading supporters of global warming in the United States.

I can appreciate the predicament supporters of global warming are in. If any other theory had faced similar problems, it would have been rejected by now. I would support the effort the Met Office has suggested, provided it was done correctly. How? With the Scientific Method firmly in place. Don't use the data to prove your point, collect the data, and see what it tells you. Until they can do that, I will continue to believe man-made global warming is simply a political cause, and not science.

Technorati Update

This code is for technorati. Regular readers should ignore it.

V6GQ5Z9WF7ZG

President Ahab

According to the New York Times, President Obama, "...will put forward comprehensive health care legislation intended to bridge differences between Senate and House Democrats ahead of a summit meeting with Republicans next week...". According to Presidential aides, President Obama intends to get his bill attached to a budget bill so that it can pass the Senate under reconciliation. Reconciliation will allow it to pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of the filibuster proof 60 votes. The President plans on placing his bill on the White House website Monday morning. This will be four days before his meeting with Republicans to discuss health care reform, or the President's own personal whale.

The only other details that have been released about the President's bill is that it would attempt to cover 30 Million Americans by 2019 (thus still not providing health care insurance for everyone), would cost about $900 Billion, would require Americans to buy health insurance or be fined, would make it illegal for insurance companies to exclude pre-existing conditions, and provide tax subsidies to "moderate-income" people to buy insurance. The New York Times quotes "Officials" as saying the President's bill will also tax "high-cost, employer-sponsored insurance policies," and would also, "reflect a deal reached with labor union leaders to limit the impact tax on workers". Abortion has not been mentioned one way or another on in the details that have been leaked.

I think it is interesting that the President is working on a bill that is a compromise between House and the Senate Democrats ahead of his meeting with Republicans. The meeting with Republicans is supposed to be so that the President can listen to their ideas. How can anyone believe he is going to do this if he has already written his own bill that he is trying to get support for? Additionally, some Democrats are nervous about the bill because they haven't been consulted about it, and are a little uneasy about using the reconciliation process to pass such a huge, far reaching bill.

I think the President has shown his hand. The meeting next week is a show meeting to attempt to trick voters into believing he has listened to anything the Republicans have to say. I also think passing this bill under reconciliation is the very epitome of Washington Politics that Candidate Obama ran claiming to oppose. The President may also be surprised at how hard it is to use the reconciliation option after the recent Massachusetts elections with many Democrats nervous about their chances in November.

The President has taken his eye off the ball when it comes to the economy. He has become obsessed with passing a health care bill, any health care bill. Democrats would be wise to give up this white whale and try to deal with the problems that are really affecting our nation.

Let Them Eat Cat!

I have been traveling a lot over the last week, and the blog has suffered for it. I am back home now, and hope to resume a more normal posting schedule. However, I thought everyone might enjoy a more entertaining post. Something that has nothing to do with President Obama, Iran, or Global Warming. Eating cats...

I first stumbled across this story on the Drudge Report, and went to the Times UK article. I can't write a better intro than the the Times UK:

A top Italian food writer has been suspended indefinitely from the country’s version of the television programme Ready Steady Cook for recommending stewed cat to viewers as a “succulent dish”.

I really did laugh and laugh at this. The article goes on to explain that the Chef was raised in an area of Italy that was known to eat cat in time of economic hardship. The article tells of the terrible incident:

“I’ve eaten it myself and it’s a lot better than many other animals,” he [Chef Beppe Bigazzi] told viewers. “Better than chicken, rabbit or pigeon.” He said that for optimum flavour the meat should be “soaked in spring water for three days” before being stewed.

Personally, I think the story was just as funny as can be. I wish the Chef the best of luck as the network has placed him on indefinite leave. However, if my own cats don't mend their evil ways, I may have to write Chef Bigazzi for the recipe.

No More Diplomatic Solution to Iran.

I think we have finally reached a point where I feel there is no longer a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions.


I have written on here a number of times that I believe a nuclear armed Iran is a threat to U.S. interests and to the world. We must do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Fox News reports today that the United States has added new restrictions and sanctions on members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. This was in response to Iran's announcement that it has begun enriching a portion of its uranium to the 20% purity level. This level is high enough to be used in a nuclear weapon. Iran claims it wishes to create treatments for cancer patients in Iran.

Iran has used a stall and delay tactic for years now to continue to advance its nuclear program. The United Nations would make demands, Iran would ask for time to respond, or for clarification. The entire time, it continued down the path towards a nuclear weapon. At the same time, Iran has been developing longer and longer range missiles. President Obama has tried very hard to resolve this issue through diplomatic means. He has failed. President Bush tried to resolve Iran's nuclear quest by allowing the European Union to be the primary negotiators. That failed as well.

The toughest sanctions we could possibly use against Iran would be to target their gasoline imports. Iran has very little refinery capabilities, and has to import roughly 40% of its refined petroleum. However, Russia and China have stood in the way of this sanction for some time. Even with the announcement of Iran's increased enrichment a Reuters UK report says that Russia has "...sent its strongest signal yet on Tuesday that it could back a fourth set of U.N. sanctions over Iran's nuclear programme"{emphasis mine} and China is "determined to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons." However, in this same article, China is said to be nervous that talk of sanctions might harm the diplomatic process.

Iran has shown it has no desire to give up its nuclear quest through the typical diplomatic process. China and Russia continue to be roadblocks to the toughest sanctions against Iran. The world has tried the diplomatic solution, including, "... five U.N. Security Council resolutions -- and three sets of U.N. sanctions -- aimed at pressuring it to freeze enrichment, and [Iran] has instead steadily expanded its program." If our goal is to slow down, freeze, or remove Iran's nuclear program, we have failed under both a Democratic and a Republican administration. President Obama has been the picture of diplomacy with Iran. Iran responds to this open hand by seting new enrichment targets. At some point, we have to acknowledge our failures, and try something different. If we don't, Iran will get a nuclear weapon.

The Waste of Money at the Census

I just saw the "controversial" 2010 Superbowl ad. If you missed it, you can view it here. I had read a little about this before tonight. A number of people (including me) are upset that the government is spending $2.5 Million on a Superbowl ad to tell people about the Census. Does our government really have the money to blow on a project like this? The Census is required by law, and I don't disagree with it. I do disagree with the multi-million dollar PR ad for the Census. I also disagree with the $133 Million ad campaign as Fox News reports:

The bureau is spending $133 million between January and May -- or, more than $13 million for each of 10 questions, one of which reads: What is your telephone number? -- to publicize the national head-count. Part of that effort is the Super Bowl ad, which Kendall Johnson, a spokeswoman for the bureau, confirmed Wednesday to FoxNews.com cost $2.5 million to air. The ad, produced by actor and director Christopher Guest, also will appear in other media, Johnson said.

If you have seen the ad (which you should do. You paid for it.), you might be a little confused. It looks like the census is some sort of reality movie, or perhaps a giant prank. The ad does very little to inform anyone about the census, or to convince you to let the census counters talk to you.


Early in this piece, I called the ad "controversial". In truth, it shouldn't be. We should all be outraged at the $133 Million waste of money our government has embarked on, and the worthless $2.5 Million Superbowl ad.

Is North Carolina History?

North Carolina has made a bold decision that history began in 1877. You may think they have lost their mind, but Fox News reports:

Right now, {North Carolina} high school students learn world history in the ninth grade, civics and economics in the tenth and the entirety of U.S. history in the eleventh grade. Under the proposed change, all ninth graders wouldn't study world history. Instead, they''ll have to take a course called Global Studies focusing on the modern issues like the environment.

Tenth graders will still get Civics and Economics, while the junior year U.S. history class would start in 1877. State officials say events prior to that year will be taught before high school and also incorporated into the sophomore year Civics class.

Education officials acknowledge this is a big change but believe it will allow them to connect with a standard of teaching based on a new national initiative called called Common Core which emphasizes standards to help prepare students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in college and careers and to be prepared to compete globally.


"The whole notion of the common core is fewer, clearer and more in depth standards. So that our students remember what's important," Garland said.

North Carolina had signers at the Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution. It was here at the founding of our nation, and now it has decided that it's history, and that of the United States, isn't really that important. I guess we should feel privileged that they are keeping history after 1877. The rest of the world has no history at all according to North Carolina officials.


I have often heard history teachers complain that it's hard to squeeze all of U. S. History into the time they are allowed to teach it. However, I don't believe many of them would vote to simply not teach anything before 1877.


Our history makes us who we are. We have made mistakes, but we have also been a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. How do you argue against ideas that could be destructive if you have no concept of the context of our government, our nation, our history, or our values?


School officials in North Carolina have lost sight of what they are suppose to do. Teaching our children math, english, AND history is important. Global "Environmental" studies can be important, but not at the expense of our own identity. Without our identity, what are we?

Citizen United vs. F. E. C.

Imagine someone told you that the government banned a movie during a presidential campaign because this movie talked about that candidate in a bad light. Imagine that the government decided it had the power to prevent a book from being published if it was a 500 page work of fiction and the last sentence said, "Vote for Joe Blow for President". Would you think that was acceptable? Or would you argue that both the movie and the book should be protected under the First Amendment?

Despite what you may have read or heard in the media, this was the heart of the case Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission. Citizens United is a conservative charity that had made a film called "Hillary: the Movie". Here is how the website for the movie describes it:

Hillary The Movie is complete! The movie you’ve been waiting for is here and exploding onto the scene! With nearly 40 in-depth interviews with experts, opinion makers, and many of the people who personally locked horns with the Clintons, this is the film you need!

The cast to end all casts includes: Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Jeff Gerth, Buzz Patterson, Michael Barone, Billy Dale, Cyrus Nowrasteh, Tony Blankley, Dick Armey, Bay Buchanan, Joe Connor, Mark Levin, Frank Gaffney, Peter Paul, Gary Aldrich, Dan Burton, John Mica, Michael Medved, Kathleen Willey, Kate O’Beirne, Larry Kudlow and more!

If you want to hear about the Clinton scandals of the past and present, you have it here!

Hillary The Movie is the first and last word in what the Clintons want America to forget!

Obviously, this movie was not going to be flattering to Mrs. Clinton. Citizens United wanted to air commercials promoting the movie before the Democratic Primaries. However, under McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, because the group was promoting this film 30 days prior to a primary it was illegal. In other words, the government had the power to regulate what commercials were being aired prior to an election.

Citizens United fought this in court. As time and court hearings came and went, they picked up an unusual group of supporters. You would probably not be surprised to find that Citizens Untied is a conservative non-profit group, or that both the Heritage Foundation and the CATO Institute were supporting Citizens United in their fight. After all, conservatives stick together right? What may surprise you is that groups such as the ACLU, AFL-CIO, and the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press were also supporting Citizens United. The President's temper-tantrum during the State of the Union last week didn't make it sound like there was bipartisan support for this case, but there was.

Bradley Smith points out that, "The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional." The court did not address political spending by foreign countries, or by businesses that are headquartered overseas. There are other sections of the law that covers that and those sections have not been affected by this ruling. What the court found particularly offensive is the broad power the FEC had taken on to ban books, tv spots, or movies that discuss political candidates prior to elections. Shouldn't every voter be concerned with this?

Our nation has a rich heritage of political discourse. Sometimes this is done on TV, sometimes in pamphlets, sometimes in newspapers. Sometimes they're funded by private individuals, sometimes non-profit groups, and sometimes companies. But all of this is protected free speech. This is the very speech our founders tried to protect. Robert Robb points out today that:

No one would argue, for example, that because a corporation is not an individual, the Fifth Amendment's protection against the taking of property without just compensation doesn't apply to it, or the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. How can corporations be entitled to some of the protections in the Bill of Rights but not others?

I've read a number of articles that have said in reality this decision is likely to have a very limited impact on political adds. Let's pretend it doesn't. Let's pretend American companies and unions suddenly throw lots of money into political adds in the next campaign. I say, "So what? " Anything that increases our political discourse should be a good thing. And protecting the Bill of Rights should be supported by all of us.

The Repugnant Nature of the Minimum Wage

This post has grown out of an entry that I posted at Red State here. I received some interesting comments on it at Red State, so I thought I would rework it and open the post up here for discussion. I introduced this entry at Red State as part of the "Red State Book Notes" project.

This weeks reading for the "book notes" included the chapter “Minimum Wage Laws” from Economics in One Lesson. If I had titled the chapter, I would have called it “The Evil-and-in-all-Ways-Morally-Repugnant Minimum Wage Law”. In the interest of full disclosure, I have always thought minimum wage laws violated the very concept of a free society. If I run a small business and work out a contract with an employee to work for me for $5 an hour, why does the federal government believe it is entitled to step in and tell me I must actually pay that person $7.25 an hour? This is a private transaction between two people.

However, we are told that by having a minimum wage we guarantee people make a just and decent “living wage”. But do they? As Hazlitt points out in this book:

The first thing that happens, for example, when a law is passed that no one shall be paid less than $106 for a forty-hour week is that no one who is not worth $106 a week to an employer will be employed at all. You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him anything less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering.

This makes perfect sense if you think the process through and ignore the typical political rhetoric. Let’s say you own a small business. Applicant A shows up for a job interview. While the person is nice enough, you quickly determine their labor isn't worth the $7.25 an hour to you. You won’t hire this person. You will wait until someone comes along that you believe is worth the $7.25. The federal law has made Applicant A unemployable.

The argument is sometimes put forward that we need a minimum wage law, or need to increase it because the gap between the “have’s” and the “have nots” has gotten too big. First, there is never any evidence put forward with this argument. Secondly, as the above shows, a federal minimum wage law will only make any gap there is that much larger. Finally, this gap never takes into account the increased living conditions of today’s “poor” versus their counterparts from 50 years ago.

When I originally posted this, I got a comment that minimum wage laws prevent industry from exploiting people. This argument assumes that individuals can’t take care of themselves. The supporters of minimum wage laws assume that someone working $5.00 and hour won’t leave to earn $5.25 an hour. It also assumes that only the government can prevent an employer from taking advantage of an individual. Our world is now so interconnected it’s easy to find out what employers pay. If you are worth more, you’ll find a job that pays more.

Finally, if you accept the theory behind the minimum wage law, then you must also accept the power of the federal government to decided a "maximum wage law", or a point above which you cannot be paid. If the government can legally set a price below which you cannot pay someone, why can’t it set the price above which you cannot pay someone? Further, since minimum wages apply to almost every industry, a "maximum wage" would as well. The maximum wage law has gotten some traction when it is suggested that it apply to companies that have taken bailout money. That is just a short skip from all companies.

A minimum wage law is just another instance of the federal government interfering in what should be private transactions between two people. You can wrap it up in the pretty argument of a “living” wage, or in “helping the poor”, but at the end of the day, its just the government sticking its nose into our private lives when they shouldn’t be there. It’s a failed attempt to legislate prosperity.

"What Will Democrats Do Now?"

That seemed to be the question I heard the most yesterday. With the election of a Republican to the blue state of Massachusetts, what will the Democrats do? Here are my thoughts on what Tuesday's election means.

No Obamacare This Year

The Senate Republicans seem to be doing a very good job of standing in the breach. With a 41st vote, the Republicans can stall any legislation as long as they want. The only way to pass Obamacare is through reconciliation or by the House adopting the Senate bill. Speaker Pelosi doesn't have the votes in the House, and reconciliation will strip the bill to the point that Reid may not even recognize it. There may still be health care reform this year. However, I think it will be very different from what we have seen so far.

"Moderate" Democrats Will look for the door.

There are two types of Democrats in the party today: Progressives and Democrats. Progressives are the true liberals of the party like Reid, Clinton, and Pelosi. "Moderate Democrats" or Democrats are the more main stream or even "blue dog" element of the party. The progressives have been telling the moderates for months now that they must pass health care reform or they won't get reelected in November. President Obama has told Democrats he will personally campaign from coast to coast for them after they pass health care. Today, moderate Democrats are looking at Massachusetts and thinking that Obama campaigned for Coakley and she lost. She lost in Massachusetts and she lost the independent voter by 3:1. They remember New Jersey and Virginia where Obama campaigned and the Democrat lost in both cases. In both cases independents voted for Republicans by a 2:1 margin. Career politicians see as job #1 getting reelected. President Obama doesn't have the shirt tails to give them the cover they need in November. Already Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) says health care reform has as much chance of passing as pigs flying out has butt. Democrats weren't talking like this before Tuesday. I think some Democrats will simply announce they aren't seeking reelection, others will start distancing themselves from Reid and Pelosi and may start voting against things like health care reform or cap and trade.

The Politicans will Begin to Listen

During the last twelve months, a number of Republicans and Democrats have participated in Tea Parties across the country. They have gone to their representatives office to complain. They have sent emails, letters, and phone calls telling the congressman or senator how to vote and what the voters thought. These people have been ignored. Many Democrats in Congress and the Senate simply believed the voters couldn't, or wouldn't, really do anything. Now Nelson has been run out of a restaurant for the first time in his political career by angry voters. A solidly blue state has elected a semi-conservative Republican who campaigned on fighting a Democratic President on his signature issue. I promise you a number of politicians are looking for ways to seem more responsive to voters. That's always a good thing.

Massachusetts (Open Post) -- UPATED III

By now it's hard not to know what is going on in Massachusetts. Today is the special election to replace the late Senator Ted Kennedy. I think in any other year, no one would be following this election. However, Scott Brown stands a good chance to shock the nation today and upset the system to become a Republican elected in bluest of blue Massachusetts. Scott Brown has campaigned as a down to earth politician. One of his tactics has been to drive a pickup truck to his different campaign events. His biggest issue has been health-care reform. Brown has said that if elected he will be the 41st vote against the current health care legislation.


The Democrat in the race, Martha Coakley has made a number of blunders, with many of them coming in the last couple of weeks. Among the blunders, she has stated there are no terrorists left in Afghanistan, has misspelled "Massachusetts" in campaign adds, and said she had no knowledge of a reporter who was pushed down by one of her security people (photo's of the event show otherwise). Perhaps worse for her chances with Boston voters, she said on a radio interview that former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Shilling was a Yankee's fan.

This race will end in one of three ways:

1. An outright win by Coakley. This will make for interesting news for about 24 hours, will give Sen. Reid the 60 votes he needs to hold onto in the Senate, and is the traditional wisdom in this election.
2. An outright win by Brown. Will be a political earthquake felt throughout the United States. It could change the very nature of the political debate for the next 9 months until November.
3. A close win by Brown. The ugliest of all options. This will bring out challenge and recount after recount. We will also probably see a legal challenge to determine if Ted Kennedy's temporary replacement in the Senate can remain seated until the election is decided.
   

I am leaving this post open throughout the day. As I hear news I think is important I will update this post. Feel free to comment and check back often.

**Update One**

I just saw this at Fox News:

Congressional Democrats are meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday, but the acrimony is starting to reveal itself as Democrats speak more and more in terms of who mismanaged the debate.

It may mean nothing, but if Democrats are already looking for someone to blame if Brown wins, that means they are very nervous about their own internal polling numbers.

**Update Two**

On Michael Medved's show this afternoon he interviewed one of the author's of the new book Game Change. Mark Halperin stated that in his private conversations with staff in the White House, they don't like their chances in today's race. Again, this doesn't affect the actual race, but it does point to poor internal poll numbers at the White House for Coakley.


**Update Three**

I just saw this posted by the Associated Press. They have already called the election for Scott Brown. Here is the first paragraph:

BOSTON – In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in a U.S. Senate election Tuesday that left President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in doubt and marred the end of his first year in office.

My Favorite Books From Last Year.

I am borrowing / copying / stealing this post from Rebecca at My Adventures in History. A few days ago, she wrote a post entitled My Top Ten History Books of 2009. The post discussed some of her favorite history books that she read in 2009. After reading her post, I decided it might be fun to do the same thing here. So, here are my favorite political / current events / history books that I read in 2009 (in no real order).

1. A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media by Bernard Goldberg. I read this book early in 2009, and wrote a review of it here. The main message of this book was that the media did a very poor job of looking into (then candidate) Barack Obama's history. The media has lost, and will continue to lose, credibility because of it. This book sounds like an attack on Barack Obama, but it was really a critique of the media.
   
   
   
2. Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. I reviewed this book here. It's a very good book and will have you rethinking the Woodrow Wilson administration, the 1960's, and our government today.
   
   
   
3. American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph Ellis. I reviewed this one back in February. It falls into the "history" category, but it is a quick read. Mr. Ellis does a very good job of showing both the author of the Declaration of Independence and the man of contradictions we know him to be. I highly recommend it.
   
   
   
4. Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark Levin. The best work of Conservative thought I have ever read, and possibly the best one ever written. If you are Conservative or Libertarian, this is a must read. If you are liberal and want a concise explanation of what Conservative's think, this is your "enemy playbook".
   
   
   
5. The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World by W. Cleon Skousen. I couldn't mention the books I read last year and not mention this one. When I reviewed it in May, I never thought it would generate the debate it did on this site. I have reports that tell me what pages on this site people look at. The review on this book is read every single day.
   

In case you aren't interested in any of these books, I also have two "honorable mentions" from last year. Both of these books are well worth the read, and neither made it onto this site for a review.

1. A Man of Letters by Thomas Sowell. This was a great read. It is Mr. Sowell's attempt to retrace portions of his life through his correspondence. There are only a few people that I will read anything they write. Mr. Sowell is one of them. Anytime I find an article by him, I stop what I am doing to read it. This book really made me think. You won't be disappointed with it.
   
   
   
2. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: The Classic Regency Romance - Now with Ultraviolent Zombie Mayhem!by Jane Austen and Seth Gramme-Smith. Really, what classic wouldn't be made at least a little better if you added zombies? This contains Austen's original masterpiece, with a little zombie goodness sprinkled in for fun. You'll laugh! You'll Cry! It's better than Cats! At least until Cats and Zombies opens on Broadway.

I hope you try at least one of these books over the next year. If you do, let me know what you thought of it. Did you read any books this past year that should be reviewed on here? Let me know. Regardless of the political perspective of the author, if I like the book, and think my readers will like it, I'll review it and post it here.

Should Harry Reid Step Down?

This weekend, a quote surfaced from Harry Reid describing Barack Obama. The quote was from 2008 and, as Fox News reports,Harry Reid is quoted as "...describing Barack Obama as 'light-skinned' with 'no Negro dialect' unless he wants one." In the last few days Republicans have called on Reid to step down as Senate Majority Leader. Senator Reid spent the weekend calling black leaders to get support for staying in his leadership position. The White House says the President is not offended by Reid's comments.

I personally think Reid's comments crossed a line. I don't think I would feel comfortable using the word "Negro" to describe a person, or a person's actions, in today's world. I think as an elected official, Reid needs to be a little more careful with his words than a private citizen. I also wonder if Reid's comments, as Senate Majority Leader, are suppose to represent the Democratic National Committee, and Senate Democrats. We know there is at least one previous member of the Klan who is a Senate Democrat (Byrd, D-WV).

Many have drawn a comparison to Trent Lott's comments in 2002. Lott was Senate Majority Leader as well, but Lott was also Republican from the south. Lott stepped down from the Senate Majority Leaders position when Democrats took offense at his comments at Sen. Strom Thurmond's birthday party. Reid was particularly clear when he said that Lott had no alternative but to step down from the leadership position.

A few months back Joe Wilson was accused of being racists because he accused the President of lying. President Obama said Don Imus should be fired for his comments about a particular girl's basketball team. Democrats demand repercussions for these comments, but there should be no repercussions for the Senate Majority Leader just because he is a Democrat?

A reader named Patrick made a comment on this site that I have heard used a number of times now. The argument goes: because Republicans used political tricks and closed door negotiations, we shouldn't be outraged when Democrats do it on health care. Those using this argument want to know why we didn't hold Republicans to this standard. I believe it was wrong of the Republicans and I would question supporters of Harry Reid today, "Why was it wrong for Lott to say something offensive, but not Reid? Why did the President think Imus should be fired, but Reid should retain his comfy position in the Senate?"

If Reid were to step down, he would still be a sitting Senator. The Democrats would have the same number of votes. Reid could still run for reelection this year. However, if Reid steps down, it might jeopardize the President's agenda because a new Majority Leader might not be as liberal, even though he would still be a Democrat. Does that mean that the President's feelings on race, and the Democratic Parties, have a price? Eric Holder has said we are cowards on race. Who was he referring too?

Did Obama Lie, or is he Cowardly?(UPDATED)

Breitbart.tv has a video posted on it's website today. The video shows candidate Barack Obama promising to show congressional health care debates on C-SPAN so that the voters can see exactly what deals are made and who is trying to protect the voters. The clip has him promising this eight times.

The Democrats have now passed a "health care" bill in both the House and the Senate. Traditionally, these bills would go to a conference committee made up of Republicans and Democrats from both the House and the Senate. This committee would iron out the differences in the bill, and present a revised bill to the House and Senate to vote on and send to President Obama.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are considering skipping this step, and conferencing behind closed doors with the White House on a "final bill". This would lock out Republicans and many Democrats. C-SPAN remembered President Obama's campaign promise, and wants to hold him to it. They have asked to broadcast the negotiations to the voters. So far the Democrats are claiming that they don't need to broadcast the negotiations because, "There has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who’s served here’s experience," (so says Pelosi).

During the Bush Administration, we were told daily that President Bush lied about any number of things. Where are those on the left who were constantly attacking Bush? President Obama appears to have lied now. Where are the calls from the left for an open and honest negotiation? Where are the snappy "Obama lied" chants? How do we know the politicians in Washington are looking out for the voters?

I have some liberal and left leaning readers. I also have readers who consider themselves moderate. How does this make you feel? Are you okay with the President making one promise on the campaign and ignoring that promise now that he is President? Where is the promised new day of transparency?


***Update***

CBS News is running a news story saying that both Nancy Pelosi and President Obama support negotiations on this bill occurring behind closed doors. CBS ran this story as, "Obama reneges on health care transparancy". CBS also cited this as the President, "...breaking an explicit campaign promise."