A few tidbits...

Here are a few tidbits of information that I’ve heard in the past few days and wanted to share:

The Immigration Law In Arizona

Here is a piece from Reuters entitled Arizona Law to Force Hard Choices on Migrants.  I’m amazed by the idea that people who are here illegally will have to make hard choices because they may be forced to obey the law.  While I feel for them because of where they are coming from I also believe we are a country of laws and those laws must be followed.  In other words, get in line and come here legally.  The article quotes some illegal aliens.  One says “the measure leaves them few options but to leave Arizona”.  And another says "This new law gives us no other option than to leave ... I'm going back to Mexico, where I feel more comfortable”.  Cha-ching!!!  We’ve hit the jackpot – let’s pass this law on a national level.  Oh wait, we already have…

Then there is this one by Michelle Malkin which discusses the way Mexico treats their illegal aliens – let’s just say we’re extremely kind by comparison.  It does show amazing hypocrisy.  Remember, Mexico’s president has come out against the Arizona law and Mexico has issued a travel advisory to their citizens that plan to travel to Arizona.  Has the US issued a similar travel advisory?  I mean we usually issue travel warnings for places where your safety cannot be assured – Mexico would certainly qualify.

Adult Children and Obamacare

Check out the story: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/fine-print-hinders-effort-to-cover-young-adults-628666.html

One of the big “benefits” of Obamacare was the great idea that you could keep your adult children on your insurance policy until age 26.  Whether you want to do that or not is another issue.  Most insurance companies allow you to keep your college students on your plan but once they graduate their on their own.  So Obamacare helps graduates by allowing them to stay in their parents’ plans until age 26, right?  Not quite.  Too bad our wonderful representatives didn’t read the fine print.  It turns out that the coverage is for the “first plan year on or after September 23”.  For most insurance companies the “plan year” starts on January 1.  So those graduating this May/June are out of luck until next year (i.e., January 1, 2011).  And all insurance plans will be required to provide this coverage, right?  Not quite.  The article says “The IRS said the overhaul law allows — but does not require— employers to offer tax-free health coverage to adult children until they turn 27. [emphasis mine]”  So much for that benefit if your evil employer decides not to offer it.  And then there’s the cost.  I bet you thought that the adult children would be allowed to stay on the policy for free, right?  Not quite.  According to the article: “They could spread the cost across their entire pool of employees with family coverage. Or they could charge families that elect to cover their young adults a separate premium, which would be noticeably higher.”  And you thought you were getting something for nothing, right?  Not quite.  Remember there is no such thing as a free lunch no matter what Obama promises you.

As Nancy Pelosi said, “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”.  Well, it passed and we are now finding out what is in it.  So far so god, right?

One more tidbit on Obamacare – remember the report by the HHS that said Obamacare would raise costs?  There is a nice summary of that report here.  It turns out that this report was given to the HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius  more than a week before the controversial vote on the bill.  But it was not shared with the American public.  So, while the president and the other idiots that voted for it promised that costs would go down if this bill was passed, they had a report that said the costs would go up.  But they smiled and lied through their teeth and passed the bill anyway.  Incredible!!!

More Spreading Your Wealth but NOT Theirs

Did you catch the story of Bill and Hillary’s niece?  She’s Roger Clinton’s daughter and she’s now using a “government benefit card” (aka food stamps) just to buy food.  I guess we can see why Hillary thinks it takes a village to raise a child.  In the her world, family just doesn’t do things like taking care of their own.

Check out the story: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/blogs/yeas-and-nays/Say-what__-Clinton_s-niece-living-on-food-stamps-92266554.html

A Little Encouragement

This is from Bill Bennet’s Morning in America show.  He talks with Mike from Michigan about people renouncing their US citizenship because of the state of the nation.  Mike is from Croatia and gives one of the best pep talks I’ve ever heard for anyone who thinks we can’t turn this country around:

http://www.billbennett.com/michaelmedved/player.aspx?g=aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLnRvd25oYWxsLmNvbS90b3duaGFsbC9iZW5uZXR0L01pa2VfTWljaGlnYW5fU2VnLm1wMw%5e!%5e%5e!%5e

Mike ends his call with:

America is the greatest land. Every day, if you get down, if you have the opportunity kiss the ground and thank God you’re here.

NJ School Budgets

Whether you agree or not with the recent budget cuts for schools in New Jersey here are some facts to consider.  Many already know the facts and have heard it before but here are links to a couple of great articles on the subject with highlights and comments.  I thought I knew a lot but they were still enlightening.

Viva Christie - This piece discusses the fact that two thirds of the states budgets were voted down last week which hasn’t happened since 1976.  It also brings up the fact that Christie only cut the budgets by 5%.  He also agreed to restore the aid to any district where the teachers agreed to a pay freeze (not cut) and pay 1.5% of their salary for their benefits.  While the rest of the country is suffering a bad economy and high unemployment less than 24 of the state’s 591 “active” school districts have agreed to it.  Is it really about the children as the teachers’ union says?  Or is it about their money?  There is a link that lists various school information, most notably the teachers’ “Mean Salaries”:

Mean Salaries** (2008-09)
Administrators and Supervisors	$112,565
Classroom Teachers	$57,465
Educational Support Services	$70,296
District Superintendents	$158,400
Principals	$113,769

Do you think there’s a reason they used “Mean” when referencing teachers’ salaries instead of “Median”?  Seriously, there is a difference since mean indicates the average which is not always a reliable number since the average can be skewed by abnormally high or low numbers.  The median is normally the preferred number to report.  By the way the little “**” next to it references a footnote that indicates this is the first year these salaries are being reported.  I wonder why they’ve never been reported before?

The author mentions the Stimulus and how it brought money into NJ and saved teachers’ jobs but what it really did was put off these tough decisions for another year.  The author relays a great memory about a northern NJ school district that was having a contract standoff:  “I remember walking past the town’s high school and seeing a glistening Mercedes CL500 coupe sitting in the teacher’s lot with a ‘SETTLE NOW’ sign in its windshield.”  This is not representative of all teachers but it does lead into the next article. 

Bringing Thunder-ous change to New Jersey – This piece starts out discussing a bridge between Morrisville and Trenton.  It talks about the bridge being crowded in the afternoon as NJ state workers head home to their 3% income tax in Pennsylvania, while New Jersey’s top rate is 9%.  He calls it a lesson in economics that NJ has failed.  Then he gives the details of the $2.2 Billion deficit Christie inherited from Corzine and the projected $10 Billion shortfall for next year.  Remember that NJ is required by our constitution to have a balanced budget.  He mentions the $70 Billion in wealth that has left NJ in the past 4 years and the 115 tax increases imposed over the last 8 years.  I wonder if there is a correlation between increased taxes (NJ has the highest tax burden in the country) and the “rich” leaving?  The author answers that with the comment that “wealth goes where it is welcome and stays where it is well-treated.”  Obviously that’s not New Jersey.

The fact that really got to me in this article was this one [emphasis mine]:

Christie notes that the $550,000 salary of the executive director of the teachers union is larger than the total cuts proposed for 190 of the state's 605 school districts.

What I find interesting about this is that the Obama Administration feels that it is appropriate to issue pay guidelines to companies that have received federal bailout money.  This was in response to the “outrage over lucrative pay provided to executives of bailed-out companies while the public struggles with stagnant wages and high unemployment”.  Should the NJ teachers’ union be considered a “company” that was bailed out with federal money (a.k.a. Stimulus)?  And if so, where’s the outrage that the head of their union is making over a half million dollars while teachers struggle “with stagnant wages and high unemployment”.  I forgot, the teachers refused to take a pay freeze so they do not have to worry about “stagnant wages” and it’s only a small handful that will have to deal with unemployment (in my opinion it’s the newer and better ones).  This leads me to believe that as long as it is a union boss it is okay to pay an executive an exorbitant amount.  Can you say hypocrisy?

While the teachers complain to our children about cutting programs (like band) and losing their jobs, the union executive is doing pretty good and I’m sure there are others.  Where is their outrage?  When will they decide to take back their union like some of us are planning on doing with our government in November?  Instead of encouraging kids to “cut classes and go to the football field to protest his [Christie’s] policies” and showing “students a union-made video critical of him [Christie]” maybe they should be paying more attention to their own union and the millions of dollars they’re spending to combat the cuts.

The author closes with:

[Christie] has joined the struggle that will dominate the nation's domestic policymaking in this decade -- to break the ruinous collaboration between elected officials and unionized state and local workers whose affections the officials purchase with taxpayers' money.

I think Christie is doing exactly what he was elected to do.  You can go to the NJEA’s website and send him and your state representatives a note of encouragement (just don’t use their sample letter):

      http://njkidsandfamilies.com/elected/

If you’d prefer to call:

      http://www.njkidsandfamilies.com/call/

They Want to Spread the Wealth - Just not their own

This type of thing really bothers me:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/15/obamas-earned-55-million-2009b/

The Obamas earned $5.5 million last year.  Out of all of that money they donated only 5.9%.  If President Obama thinks people who earn over $250,000 are “rich” and should be taxed more to pay for social programs, then why does he and his wife need over $5 million?  If they think other people can live on $250,000, and still be considered rich, then why don’t they donate $5 million of their income and live on the remaining $500,000.  They’d still make twice as much as those who they consider rich. 

Then there’s Joe Biden and his wife Jill.  They earned $333,000 but only gave %1.44 of that to charity.  Did you get that?  Only 1.44%!!!  That is pathetic.  Where is his sense of patriotism?  Why isn’t he jumping in, being part of the deal and helping America out of the rut?  During the campaign he commented they he and Obama wanted “to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people”.  How many of you middle-class people out there would love to have some of Obama’s or Biden’s money in your pocket? 

This is the height of hypocrisy.  It is disgusting and it is embarrassing that they call themselves Christians.  It is typical of the liberals that are running this country.  They want to raise the taxes on the “rich” so that they can spread the wealth around.  They just not willing to spread their own around.

Did you catch this on Rush?

You may have missed this on the Rush Limbaugh show today.  He made reference to the following US Today article:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-13-nuke-plans_N.htm

The article talks about plans from the White House in the case of a nuclear attack.  The article starts off with:

The White House has warned state and local governments not to expect a "significant federal response" at the scene of a terrorist nuclear attack for 24 to 72 hours after the blast

Rush mused about the idea that it could take up to 3 days for people to get help after a major disaster in this country.  He wondered what the people in New Orleans would think about that.

Conservatives Beware

The Republicans are meeting with President Obama this week about health insurance reform. This is an effort by President Obama to pretend to show bipartisanship. It is a trap. We should be aware of where this is headed. Last weekend, Ed Rendell (Governor-PA) was on one of the Fox news shows.

He talked about listening to Republican ideas on health insurance reform. He referred to an “excellent” idea by Tim Pawlenty. The idea was to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. He said “that’s a good idea in theory” but he only wants that company from Idaho to sell in Pennsylvania “if they are held to the same standards”. In other words if they provide the mandated coverage that Pennsylvania requires then they can sell insurance there. This is the trickery that the Democrats will be using. You have to pay careful attention to what they are saying. It sounds like they are opening the door to competition by allowing insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines. Here’s the problem – that insurance company in Idaho can already sell insurance in Pennsylvania by registering with the state and selling the insurance that Pennsylvania mandates. There’s no change!!! The point of removing the barrier of state lines is so that people will have the option to buy insurance from a company in a state where there are fewer mandates and cheaper premiums. It’s a simple concept that the Democrats just do not get: more mandates equal higher premiums (see idea #2 in REAL Reform – 7 Ideas for Health Insurance Reform).

Governor Rendell also used the liberal ploy of victimhood by bringing up children with autism. He portrayed Pennsylvania as the champion of the little guy where they tell their health insurance companies that “you have to provide coverage to autistic children”. This is what the liberals refer to as a “consumer protection”. While there are legitimate mandates like covering children with disabilities many of the mandates are unnecessary and simply cause insurance premiums to be higher.

So what is Governor Rendell’s solution? He wants to “set up national standards”. Translation: a national insurance commissioner that determines what is and is not acceptable coverage. So when this commissioner decides massage therapy is a necessary consumer protection (or mandate) that those evil insurance companies must cover, we end up paying higher premiums – whether we want massage therapy or not. It's just another way for the government to tell us what insurance we must have. It’s no different than what we have now at the state level and we see how well that works.

The Democrats will set this up as an effort to be bipartisan. They'll say that they're "listening" to the Republicans' ideas. They'll say they want to implement their ideas. But in reality, they'll ruin the effectiveness of those ideas with more government intervention. Then, when it does not reduce premiums because there are still too many coverage mandates they'll blame the Republicans. If the Republicans say no to this ruse then they will be branded as the party of "no". The trap is set and the Republicans are walking into it. Let's hope the American people are smart enough to see this for what it is.

A Really Good One-Term President?

Check out the article about Obama's exclusive interview with Diane Sawyer:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/president-obama-good-term-president/story?id=9657337

In it he states that "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." Finally, I can agree with President Obama on something: I too hope he is a one-term president. There's already enough evidence to show that the "really good" part won't happen so I hope he can at least follow through on the second half of this statement.

After reading the article I actually found more things I agree with him on. Like when he said "When your poll numbers drop, you are an idiot." Well his poll numbers have certainly dropped in the past few months so I tend to agree with this assessment of himself – it's more honest than the B+ he gave himself a few months back. Then there was: ""I'd probably say I make a mistake a day, maybe two." Or three or four and most days more.

What amazes me is that this president added $800 Billion to our children's debt with the promise that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. We all know too well where it is now. Then a month or so ago he had a "Jobs Summit" to figure out how to create jobs. Do you think he should have had that summit prior to the $800 Billion stimulus bill? Of course the Chamber of Commerce and National Federation of Independent Business were not invited to the "summit" but unions were. I'm thinking something is a bit backwards there. He invited the people that kill jobs by demanding too much for their constituents but left out the people that create jobs and then wondered where the jobs were.

During the campaign he told us that he was for the middle class. But at the end of the article it talks about him proposing "measures that emerged from his Task Force on Middle Class Families". Say that again? He has to have a Task Force on Middle Class Families? I thought he understood us and that he was bringing hope and change to the working families of America. What does he need a task force for?

Speaking of hope and change and taxes, remember the promise that anyone making under $250,000 ($200,000 for an individual) would not see their taxes increase, "not one single dime"? Of course he ignored that when he raised the cigarette tax but that was for a good cause - health care for kids - so we can let him slide on that broken promise, right? And the health insurance mandate he was going to force on all those young uninsured people, well that wasn't a tax that was a mandate with a "fine" if you didn't comply. So he's still okay, right? Well how about in the article where he's asked about tax increases for people making under $250,000 and instead of guaranteeing "not one single dime" he responded with "I can guarantee that the worst thing we could do would be to raise taxes when the economy is still this weak". Wow, that was emphatic.

The worst thing you could do when the economy is weak is consider jobs-killing bills like cap-and-tax and health insurance overhaul, but he's been doing that for a year now. The worst thing you could do when the economy is weak is to continue to attack the job creators with threats of higher taxes, but he's been doing that for a year now. The worst thing you could do when the economy is weak is to make a statement that indicates once the economy strengthens, they are going to raise taxes. If you were a company why would you consider investing in new jobs when you've just been warned that your taxes will go up when things improve? You wouldn't. You'd hunker down and save your money for the coming storm. That's what people are doing, that's why jobs are not being created, that's why people are not investing. You'd think by now Obama would have realized this but I don't think it is in DNA to understand this.

Does anybody still feel their taxes won't go up? Anybody? Does anybody still think this guy knows what he's doing? Anybody? How's that hope and change working out?

Merry Christmas America!!!

From Political Cartoons

Click on the picture to view it in full screen.