My view - casooner90's Blog - Bakersfield.com

Post Office bailout on the table

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:30:11 PST

This has been my main argument against any governent intervetion into the affairs of private entities. They are unable to manage USPS, even with direct competition from FedEx, UPS and other mainstream mail carries. So, how's it that governnent can better manage healthcare than the private sector? If you truly belive that goverment will be able to self fund Obamacare through cutting out waste, you are sadly living in a fantasy world as they tend to create more buracratic nightmares, waste and fraud. I once again advocate, government does not have your best interest. They are in it for them selves. You may think you're saving a dime, but you're only getting the royal screw if you let government take over the healthcare. Be very careful of what you ask for, you might just get it.

Post Office bailout on the table

Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 11/23/2009 7:30:00 AM

A budget expert at a prominent Washington think tank says instead of bailing out the U.S. Postal Service with taxpayer dollars, Congress should remove the government's monopoly on first- and third-class mail.

The U.S. Postal Service is estimating that it will lose almost $8 billion in the coming year and deliver 11 billion fewer pieces of mail. That follows the announcement last week that the federal agency had lost $3.8 billion in the most recent fiscal year and delivered 26 billion fewer pieces of mail.

A Postal Service spokesman tells CBS News that the agency currently owes the U.S. Treasury $10.2 billion. Now comes word that Congressman Danny Davis (D-Illinios) is calling for a federal bailout of the Postal Service and elimination of Saturday service.

Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the Cato Institute, says Davis' comments reflect a mentality in Washington that prefers taking other people's money and throwing it at a problem rather than finding practical solutions.

"You can get rid of Saturday service, or they've talked about removing a day from the week. You can give the Postal Service more money through general funds, but that's not going to fix the underlying problems at the Postal Service," the budget analyst notes. "With technology changing, people use e-mail; they use text messages [and] cell phones. That's completely undermined the demand for the Postal Service's business."

DeHaven predicts that because it is burdened by excessive labor costs through a largely unionized work force, and because the current Congress has no interest in undermining union power, the Postal Service will continue to "plod along and lose money."

Unemployement passes 10%

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:29:06 PST

I'm sure O will blame the Bush administration once again (after almost a year in the job). Of course, they'll want to talk about 'jobs saved'.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jobless-rate-tops-10-pct-for-apf-563122944.html?x=0&.v=8

Also, here is an interesting map;

http://tipstrategies.com/archive/geography-of-jobs/

So, let's pass the cap & tax to chase more jobs over sea. Let's pass the healthcare to put more burden on the American families. How about some more stimulus printed monopoly money for GM. Hope you're liking that hope & change. More cool aid anyone?

Conservatism coming back?

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:01:23 PST

Did anyone watch the returns last night? I belive the best thing that can happen to conservatism is few years of liberalism (in this case, less than one). America needs social and fiscal conservatism to stay ahead of the liberal europeans. Does this put the healthcare bill in jeapordy? I think the statement is we're tired of entitlement mentality handed out at the white house, we're tired of bailing out companies 'too big to fail' and we're tired of goverment throwing their weight around. I think the tide is turning and is turing for what America should stand for - hard work and dedication pays.

So, how's that hope & change working out for you?

dj absent dave dodger fan ...

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:48:11 PDT

To TBC, thanks for kicking djembe, absent dave, dodger fan or what ever else alias this person goes by off of the blog site. Maybe now he can use that spare time to go look for a job and be a productive member of the society. Or, he may show up with a new ip address. As smart as he has been in getting back to this site, you wonder why he doesn't apply that to his personal life to get ahead. I will not miss him.

Transparent Administration?

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:19:34 PDT

Obama spoke of transparency. However, his actions have been anything but. This is the latest saga of a small minded administration / president. This administration's attempt to control media - sounds like a communist country yet? Whether you're a democrat or a republican, I hope you will agree that state shouldn't attempt to control the media. Waging a war against Rush or Foxnews is indeed an act by a thin skinned administration - especially when there are much bigger issues like cap & tax, healthcare, two wars, federal deficit, stimulus spending, etc...

White House Escalates War on Fox News

Senior Obama administration officials took to the airwaves Sunday to accuse Fox News of pushing a particular point of view and not being a real news network.

FOXNews.com

Monday, October 19, 2009

The White House escalated its offensive against Fox News on Sunday by urging other news organizations to stop "following Fox" and instead join the administration's attempt to marginalize the channel.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox."

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization."

"Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "We're not going to treat them that way."

By urging other news outlets to side with the administration, Obama aides officials dramatically upped the ante in the war of words that began earlier this month, when White House communications director Anita Dunn branded Fox "opinion journalism masquerading as news."

On Sunday, Fox's Chris Wallace retorted: "We wanted to ask Dunn about her criticism, but, as they've done every week since August, the White House refused to make any administration officials available to 'FOX News Sunday' to talk about this or anything else."

The White House stopped providing guests to 'Fox News Sunday' after Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in August. Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was "something I've never seen a Sunday show do."

"She criticized 'FOX News Sunday' last week for fact-checking -- fact-checking -- an administration official," Wallace said Sunday. "They didn't say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check."

"Let's fact-check Anita Dunn, because last Sunday she said that Fox ignores Republican scandals, and she specifically mentioned the scandal involving Nevada senator John Ensign," Wallace added. "A number of Fox News shows have run stories about Senator Ensign. Anita Dunn's facts were just plain wrong."

Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente said: "Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, health care and two wars. The door remains open and we welcome a discussion about the facts behind the issues."

Observers on both sides of the political aisle questioned the White House's decision to continue waging war on a news organization, saying the move carried significant political risks.

Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said on CNN: "I don't always agree with the White House. And on this one here I would disagree."

David Gergen, who has worked for Democratic and Republican presidents, said: "I totally agree with Donna Brazile." Gergen added that White House officials have "gotten themselves into a fight they don't necessarily want to be in. I don't think it's in their best interest."

"The faster they can get this behind them, the more they can treat Fox like one other organization, the easier they can get back to governing, and then put some people out on Fox," Gergen said on CNN. "I mean, for goodness sakes -- you know, you engage in the debate.

What Americans want is a robust competition of ideas, and they ought to be willing to go out there and mix it up with some strong conservatives on Fox, just as there are strong conservatives on CNN like Bill Bennett."

Bennett expressed outrage that Dunn told an audience of high school students this year that Mao Tse-tung, the founder of communist China, was one of "my favorite political philosophers."

"Having the spokesman do this, attack Fox, who says that Mao Zedong is one of the most influential figures in her life, was not…a small thing; it's a big thing," Bennett said on CNN. "When she stands up, in a speech to high school kids, says she's deeply influenced by Mao Zedong, that -- I mean, that is crazy."

Fox News contributor Karl Rove, who was the top political strategist to former President George W. Bush, said: "This is an administration that's getting very arrogant and slippery in its dealings with people. And if you dare to oppose them, they're going to come hard at you and they're going to cut your legs off."

"This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list. And it's unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States to so do," Rove added. "That is over- the-top language. We heard that before from Richard Nixon."

Media columnist David Carr of the New York Times warned that the White House war on Fox "may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling."

"While there is undoubtedly a visceral thrill in finally setting out after your antagonists, the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence," Carr wrote over the weekend. "So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year."

He added: "The administration, by deploying official resources against a troublesome media organization, seems to have brought a knife to a gunfight."

Charlie Sheen Open Mouth - Insert foot

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 07:01:10 PDT

http://origin2.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,548400,00.html

Report: Charlie Sheen Seeks Meeting With Obama to Discuss 9/11 'Cover-Up'

In an interview with PrisonPlanet.com, The “Two and a Half Men” star unveils a fictional 20-minute exchange he imagines having with Obama – whom he supported in the November election – during which he implores the president to get on “the right side of history.”

Sheen, 44, argues that “the official 9/11 story is a fraud” and claims the attacks served as “the pretext for the systematic dismantling of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.” Moreover, he charges that the Bush/Cheney “regime” was behind the attacks as a prelude to justify an invasion of Iraq. Sheen also insinuates that Usama bin Laden is working for the U.S. government.

Sheen, who has been an adamant “9/11 Truther” for years, demands in his imagined meeting with Obama that the president answer what he calls a “bottomless warren of unanswered questions surrounding that day and its aftermath.”

Sheen is the former husband of actress Denise Richards, who alleged that he was addicted to gambling, prescription drugs and prostitutes. While Sheen has openly discussed his previous struggles with drugs, he has denied Richards’ allegations against him. Still, Richards used his beliefs about 9/11 as proof for a judge that he was “delusional.” She later sought and received a restraining order against him.

Sheen is now married to Brooke Mueller, with whom he has two sons.

John Adams Project

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 06:49:00 PDT

If you're not pissed at this, I challenge your patriotism. Besides a harmless jab from the likes of Charlie Sheen or idiotic comments by Matt Damon, the John Adams project actually puts US civil servant at grave harms way. No matter what you think of the past administration, one fact remains and that is we were not attacked after 9/11. Current administration's unwillingness to act tough on these guys is a proof that 1) we have a very short memory and 2) we are exposing our underbellies to nameless organizations (cowards) around the world - they are called Terrorists.

Also, notice the absence of this coverage by the alphabet channels (as well as their lack of US soldier casualty counts they so proudly produced on daily basis during the past administration, but magically disappears under the current administration).

From: http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn;jsessionid=68C414D350A26EF8AC5C579D46338E5F?pid=27182

The John Adams Project

By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com

Thursday, September 10, 2009

When I think of the terrorist atrocity that happened eight years ago, I feel deeply for people like Vic and Christine Colaio. These two fine Americans lost their sons Stephen and Mark who both worked in the World Trade Center. Along with their daughter Jean, the elderly couple suffers their loss on a daily basis. Time does not heal those kinds of wounds.

That is why I am so enraged by the John Adams Project, a group of subversive Americans affiliated with the ACLU who are sneaking around taking pictures of CIA agents who may have interrogated captured al-Qaeda guys in the wake of the 9/11 attack. This insidious outfit believes the CIA tortured casually and the USA is a "human rights violator."

After taking the surreptitious photos, the Adams Project then passes them on to lawyers representing incarcerated terrorists, hoping that an accused man will, in turn, accuse a CIA agent of torturing him. This nasty business is now being investigated by the Justice Department, but the Obama administration has kept very quiet about it and, strangely, so has the media.

Only two newspapers, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times, have reported on the John Adams Project and there is something very disturbing about that. Remember Valerie Plame? She was the CIA operative publicly exposed by columnist Robert Novak in an Iraq weapons of mass destruction controversy. After that happened, the left wing media went wild with indignation. How could anyone name a CIA person, thereby putting he or she in danger? The New York Times was on fire over the story. But when faced with the facts about the John Adams Project, the Times passed.

There comes a time when Americans get fed up with hypocrisy and simply walk away from the hypocrites. That is happening right now in the mainstream media. Newspapers are going out of business; network TV news is losing audience. Weekly news magazines like Time and Newsweek are barely surviving as Americans look elsewhere for their news.

Many media analysts blame this sad state of affairs on the internet, which can provide instant information free of charge. But I believe many news consumers understand that the fix is in and are furious about selective and distorted reporting. Thus, they are voting with their wallets.

By exposing CIA agents to accused terrorists and their lawyers, the John Adams Project is obviously putting lives in jeopardy. This is a thousand times worse than the Plame affair, which saw top Dick Cheney aide Scooter Libby convicted of a felony while the press largely celebrated.

But where is the coverage of the Adams story? Where is President Obama on the issue? Why are these people being allowed to terrorize the Central Intelligence Agency?

Relevant questions. We await the answers.

I Pledge to ???

Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:13:11 PDT

There are lots of good messages in this video. But the ending is really scary...

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13249171?_requestid=5883011&_requestid=7901479

I pledge to be a servant? Which last US president asked us to be his servant? I'll buy the sevitude to our God and our country, but this is a little freaky.

US Debt clock

Wed, 02 Sep 2009 20:51:10 PDT

And you want to start what new program with money from where? Think about this before you sign on for another new program, stimulus, or gov't bail out. As I have said in the past, our Gov't does not generate income. They tax us and spend even faster as seen by this web site. Think about that before you cry national healthcare again.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Take Two Aspirin And Call Me When Your Cancer is Stage 4

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:33:33 PDT

Take Two Aspirin And Call Me When Your Cancer is Stage 4

by Ann Coulter

07/22/2009

All the problems with the American health care system come from government intervention, so naturally the Democrats' idea for fixing it is more government intervention. This is like trying to sober up by having another drink.

The reason seeing a doctor is already more like going to the DMV, and less like going to the Apple "Genius Bar," is that the government decided health care was too important to be left to the free market. Yes -- the same free market that has produced such a cornucopia of inexpensive goods and services that, today, even poor people have cell phones and flat-screen TVs.

As a result, it's easier to get your computer fixed than your health. Thanks, government!

We already have near-universal health coverage in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' hospitals, emergency rooms and tax-deductible employer-provided health care -- all government creations.

So now, everyone expects doctors to be free. People who pay $200 for a haircut are indignant if it costs more than a $20 co-pay to see a doctor.

The government also "helped" us by mandating that insurance companies cover all sorts of medical services, both ordinary -- which you ought to pay for yourself -- and exotic, such as shrinks, in vitro fertilization and child-development assessments -- which no normal person would voluntarily pay to insure against.

This would be like requiring all car insurance to cover the cost of gasoline, oil and tire changes -- as well as professional car detailing, iPod docks, and leather seats and those neon chaser lights I have all along the underbody of my chopped, lowrider '57 Chevy.

But politicians are more interested in pleasing lobbyists for acupuncturists, midwives and marriage counselors than they are in pleasing recent college graduates who only want to insure against the possibility that they'll be hit by a truck. So politicians at both the state and federal level keep passing boatloads of insurance mandates requiring that all insurance plans cover a raft of non-emergency conditions that are expensive to treat -- but whose practitioners have high-priced lobbyists.

As a result, a young, healthy person has a choice of buying artificially expensive health insurance that, by law, covers a smorgasbord of medical services of no interest to him ... or going uninsured. People who aren't planning on giving birth to a slew of children with restless leg syndrome in the near future forgo insurance -- and then politicians tell us we have a national emergency because some people don't have health insurance.

The whole idea of insurance is to insure against catastrophes: You buy insurance in case your house burns down -- not so you can force other people in your plan to pay for your maid. You buy car insurance in case you're in a major accident, not so everyone in the plan shares the cost of gas.

Just as people use vastly different amounts of gasoline, they also use vastly different amounts of medical care -- especially when an appointment with a highly trained physician costs less than a manicure.

Insurance plans that force everyone in the plan to pay for everyone else's Viagra and anti-anxiety pills are already completely unfair to people who rarely go to the doctor. It's like being forced to share gas bills with a long-haul trucker or a restaurant bill with Michael Moore. On the other hand, it's a great deal for any lonely hypochondriacs in the plan.

Now the Democrats want to force us all into one gigantic national health insurance plan that will cover every real and mythical ailment that has a powerful lobby. But if you have a rare medical condition without a lobbying arm, you'll be out of luck.

Even two decades after the collapse of liberals' beloved Soviet Union, they can't grasp that it's easier and cheaper to obtain any service provided by capitalism than any service provided under socialism.

You don't have to conjure up fantastic visions of how health care would be delivered in this country if we bought it ourselves. Just go to a grocery store or get a manicure. Or think back to when you bought your last muffler, personal trainer, computer and every other product and service available in inexpensive abundance in this capitalist paradise.

Third-party payer schemes are always a disaster -- less service for twice the price! If you want good service at a good price, be sure to be the one holding the credit card. Under "universal health care," no one but government bureaucrats will be allowed to hold the credit card.

Isn't food important? Why not "universal food coverage"? If politicians and employers had guaranteed us "free" food 50 years ago, today Democrats would be wailing about the "food crisis" in America, and you'd be on the phone with your food care provider arguing about whether or not a Reuben sandwich with fries was covered under your plan.

Instead of making health care more like the DMV, how about we make it more like grocery stores? Give the poor and tough cases health stamps and let the rest of us buy health care -- and health insurance -- on the free market.

Highlights from the health care bill

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:27:44 PDT

Subject: A few highlights from the first 500 pages of the Healthcare bill in congress.

Contact your Representatives and let them know how you feel about this. We, as a country, cannot afford another 1000 page bill to go through congress without being read. Another 500 pages to go.

• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Health card.
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.

Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for pr ice-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
• Page 167: Any individual who doesn’t' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."
• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.
• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone)..
• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
• Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of -life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

What if George W. Bush...

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 06:14:59 PDT

Aren't the media supposed to act as a watchdog and not a Democratic lap dog? Why is Obama getting a pass on so many issues they used to mock Bush on? I maybe viewing this through my biased glasses, but do you dems on this site not see the irony?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income! taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually understand what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless! than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than 2 centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W.. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.

Left lane for passing only

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:58:09 PDT

One of my biggest pet peeves about driving is the left lane cruisers in our state. I grew up in Wyo and lived in various other states, but don't recall the abuse of left lane as we see here in Ca. The left lane cruisers (majority of the drivers in Ca?) cruise the left lane even when there are no other traffic on the road. And, when you come up on one, seldom do they move over to the right. What is it about Ca drivers that they disregard this simple driving etiqutte? I have other pet peeves (shopping carts left in paking area, truck parked crooked in the next stall, cell phone yackers driving slowly, etc...), but the left lane cruising seems to be the most commonly abused.

Okay, I do understand some of this. We have an idiotic law that has the trucks crusing at 55 while the vehicles cruise at 70. Therefore, nobody likes getting stuck behind a truck. Also, the right lane tends to be more beat up due to all the trucks. But, basic common courtesy is to at least move over when a vehicle is coming up on you and your right lane is open. More importantly, people in this state needs to learn to pass only on the left and cruise on the right. Very simple to follow and this is a basic common courtesy that should be instilled upon every new driver. Very frustrating.

Cap and Tax

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:16:36 PDT

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

The Cap and Tax Fiction

Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.

How far left will you go?

Is it time to get back in the market?

Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:41:23 PDT

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?D4=1&ViewType=0&D5=0&ShowChtBt=Refresh+Chart&DateRangeForm=1&ComparisonsForm=1&CE=0&D3=0&Symbol=%24INDU&C9=1&DisplayForm=1&CP=0&PT=7

I never left officially, but did pull out of some stuff. Now the DOW / Nasdaq are climbing, my stocks / funds are looking better. I got back in the market end of April and have made some pretty good gains. I'm no where close to where I was last fall, but still gaining. How about you? Are you back in yet? If not, what are you waiting for?

Having gotten back in, I'm very nervous about my investments as the stimuls will deflate dollar and the impact could be noticed as soon as the honey moon is over when all the short term construction jobs dissipate. Furthermore, I'm not in favor of goverment intervention in corporate America (not turning into a political thread) so that is another worry I have.

So, where are you? Let's talk investment for change.

Fairfax High's prom queen is a guy

Thu, 28 May 2009 12:00:44 PDT

Fairfax High's prom queen is a guy

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prom-queen28-2009may28,0,2700821.story

Does this shock anyone? My position on Prop 8 is related to this article in that;

1. homosexuality is a sexual deviance.

2. There are other groups waiting on the outcome of gay marriage.

3. There has to be a moral boundary in our society. If not, nothig should ever shock you anymore. Are you willing to be that open minded?

Quite simply put, I liked the times when Men were expected to be Men and Women were expected to be Women. There are some areas of acceptable progression (career for one), but I just liked the fact that Men are Men and Women are Women.

What's happening to bloggers

Fri, 08 May 2009 08:39:17 PDT

Just curious - what's happening to some of the bloggers? First it's absent dave, and now the Bakersfield dodger fan. They were feisty and some what pest like, but still a bit amusing / entertaining. I don't see any of their posts anymore. When a person gets banned, does all their posts disappear along with the person? I guess I won't really miss them, but still curious.

NO STIMULUS!

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:45:58 PST

I caught this on the way home on Laura Ingram show.

http://nostimulus.com/

I know it's already passed, but we should tell the politicians how we feel about this pork filled liberal hand out project.

Time line on current crisis

Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:39:13 PST

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

Twist it any way you want it, but you can't argue on behalf of Barney Franks. It's a wonder why that man isn't in jail for sheer incomptency.

Our very own Pelosi opened her mouth again

Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:33:26 PST

I remember Pelos saying something to like 'we need to get Americans off of dirty hydrocarbond and start developing clean natural gas'(paraphrasing). Of course, that wasn't the first time she said something that shocked me nor did I think it would be the last. Well, she has proven my point once more.

PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY
Sun Jan 25 2009 22:13:43 ET

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom," seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.

The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC's THIS WEEK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

Developing...