Cash for Clunkers: A Government Subsidy Program that is Working

We all know what conservative Republicans and Libertarians tell us. Government subsidy programs don't work: they provide little or no stimulus to the economy. They fail. But in the real world that claim can be refuted, sometimes spectacularly so:

The House of Representatives voted to provide an emergency $2 billion for the "cash for clunkers" program on Friday, and the White House declared the program very much alive, even though car buyers appear to have already snapped up the $1 billion that Congress originally appropriated.

The House shoved other business out of the way on its last day before the August recess to rush through a measure to address the cash shortage of the car program. The vote was 316 to 109, with significant support from Republicans as well as Democrats….

Over all, 239 Democrats and 77 Republicans voted in favor, while 14 Democrats and 95 Republicans voted against the measure.

The program has only been in existence for a little over a week and was initially funded at $1 billion, but it has been such a stunning success that the supplemental for an additional $2 billion became necessary:

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said about 40,000 vehicle sales had been completed through the program but dealers estimated they were trying to complete transactions on another 200,000 vehicles, putting the amount of remaining funding in doubt.

Also,

Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts, one of the authors of the original bill…declared Thursday night, "Cash for Clunkers may have run out of cash, but America's consumers haven't run out of clunkers." He said it should be extended to cover 1 million vehicles, about four times the number covered so far.

Mr. Markey said so far participants in the program were getting a 69 percent improvement in fuel economy, with the trade-ins being mostly sport utility vehicles, trucks and vans with over 100,000 miles, being replaced with new passenger cars.

Obviously, the program is not only helpful to consumers but also the ailing automobile industry:

The sudden legislative action was prompted by the overwhelming response to the program, formally known as the Car Allowance Rebate System, which its backers say has helped not only car buyers but the struggling automobile industry….

Until the cash-for-clunkers program began, the auto industry had been on track for annual sales of about 10 million units, down from the peak of about 16 million units a year.

The bill should be taken up by the Senate next week but with some emendation:

The Senate, which will be in session next week, will take up the program then. A spirited debate is likely, as some senators have said they will use the opportunity to push for tougher fuel-efficiency requirements. If the Senate does not go along with the House's version, the House might have to return to work on a compromise….

Senators Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, and Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, said in a joint statement that "we will insist that any extension of the program requires that the minimum fuel economy improvement for newly purchased vehicles be at least two miles per gallon higher than it is under the enacted Clunkers program." For cars, the current minimum improvement is five miles a gallon. And, they said, to help low-income car owners take part, they would include vouchers for fuel-efficient used vehicles.

Presently,

[u]nder the program, a buyer who picked a car with a mileage improvement of more than four miles per gallon but less than 10 were eligible for $3,500; a buyer whose new vehicle was rated 10 miles per gallon or better than the old one was eligible for $4,500.

I suspect that Feinstein and Collins are correct in wanting to push the mileage envelope a bit. It would reduce our dependence on foreign oil that much more and would probably be better for the environment.

Is the GOP Rank & File Daft?

Basically, 58% of the GOP either think that President Obama was not born in the USA or are unsure about his place of birth. That is nuttiness on a massive scale.

Perhaps the only belief that could be nuttier is that President Obama is a fascist and frequent Delaware GOP candidate for public office Tyler Nixon believes that. I'm not kidding.

UPDATE:

Steve Newton, of Delaware Libertarian, has pointed out the the original poll is at a minimum confusing and at the most supports a different claim than what was argued at Huffington Post (link). I believe that the original poll does support a different claim: viz., that 11% of all Americans doubt Obama's place of birth. It appears that from that 11% the doubting Republicans were culled. If that is the case, it would not be correct to say that "58% of the GOP either think that President Obama was not born in the USA or are unsure about his place of birth." A proper poll of what Republicans really think would be one that drew its results from Republican answers only.

Many thanks to Steve for pointing out the problem.

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com Less than half of Republicans believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America, a new public opinion poll finds. Only 42 percent of Republican respondents in a Research 2000 survey, conducted for the liberal website Daily Kos, said they thought Obama was a natural born citizen; 28 percent said they did not believe Obama was born in the United States; 30 percent said they were not sure.

Senator Robert Venables, Pray for Yourself

Delaware State Senator Robert Venables, Democrat, once opened the General Assembly with a prayer in which he asked the Almighty to help bloggers and the media come to an important realization:

[O]n the first day of the legislative assembly, Senate member Bob Veneables called on God for help with bloggers and the media. He led the opening prayer in the Senate, during which he asked the Almighty to help bloggers and the media understand that each member of the senate had been elected by at least 40,000 voters in their district and they (the senators) know best how to operate the senate.

So the state Senators best know how to operate the Senate. Let's take a gander at an example of the operation of Senator Robert Venables' wisdom within the state Senate:

The head of Fry Manufacturing, the Laurel french-fry vending machine firm that got a $50,000 allocation from this year's bond bill, is married to a niece of Sen. Robert L. Venables -- head of the Bond Bill Committee and the legislator who added the money to the bill.

Although Venables' role in securing the $50,000 grant for company co-owner Mike Ruggiero does not
appear to
violate state law or Senate rules regarding conflicts of interest, it has raised eyebrows both in the public and on the Bond Bill Committee, the 12-member General Assembly panel that writes the annual legislation to fund school and highway construction projects….

Venables, D-Laurel and a legislator since 1988, did not inform fellow committee members or Delaware Economic Development Office officials of his family tie with Ruggiero, co-owner of Fry Manufacturing and the senator's next-door neighbor.

Just so we are clear: Mike Ruggiero, whose company is the grant recipient, is both the husband of Venables niece AND his next door neighbor. How cozy.

When the News Journal first asked Venables about the propriety of awarding a grant to his next door neighbor, did the wise and godly Senator Venables tell the News Journal then that Mr. Ruggiero was also his niece's husband?

Venables also did not volunteer information about the relationship to The News Journal in an initial interview on Fry Manufacturing, or in a follow-up interview on whether he felt there were any ethical problems in directing state dollars to a next-door neighbor.

The article in the News Journal indicates that there was some merit in awarding the grant to this company. But that has little to do with the conduct of Senator Venables in this matter. At a minimum Senator Venables should have made his relationship with Mr. Ruggiero known to DEDO and the Bond Bill Committee and recused himself from any involvement with the vote on his relative's/neighbor's grant.

I suggest Senator Venables ought to pray for himself and ask God to open his mute mouth in similar situations in the future. Otherwise he could create the reputation that he is corrupt.

Yet More GOP Earmark Hypocrisy

Yet more GOP earmark hypocrisy and this time it comes with a comedic edge:

Rep. Pete Sessions — the chief of the Republicans' campaign arm in the House — says on his website that earmarks have become "a symbol of a broken Washington to the American people."

Yet in 2008, Sessions himself steered a $1.6 million earmark for dirigible research to an Illinois company whose president acknowledges having no experience in government contracting, let alone in building blimps. (emphasis mine)

But surely Sessions sees some benefit in directing $1.6 million tax dollars to this inexperienced company:

What the company did have: the help of Adrian Plesha, a former Sessions aide with a criminal record who has made more than $446,000 lobbying on its behalf. (emphasis mine)

And then there is the fact Jim Ferguson of the company Jim G. Ferguson & Associates

donated money to Sessions and other Republicans. FEC records show that Ferguson contributed $5,000 to Sessions's leadership PAC in October 2007. Overall, Ferguson and his father have given $18,500 to GOP lawmakers over the past six years.

What is Rep. Sessions defense of this earmark?

Sessions spokeswoman Emily Davis defends the airship project as a worthwhile use of federal funds and says it could eventually lead to thousands of new jobs in Sessions's Dallas-area district.

Except that

the company that received the earmarked funds, Jim G. Ferguson & Associates, is based in the suburbs of Chicago, with another office in San Antonio — nearly 300 miles from Dallas. And while Sessions used a Dallas address for the company when he submitted his earmark request to the House Appropriations Committee last year, one of the two men who control the company says that address is merely the home of one of his close friends. (emphasis mine)

It's hard to pick what is the funniest aspect of this taxpayer theft. The blimps, the fact that the company has no experience making blimps, the ex-aide lobbyist with a criminal record, or the locations of the company? But my selection is the use by Rep Sessions of a good friend's address as the location of the company. The fraud involved in that is so in your face.

Housing Sales Up for the First Time in 3 Years

Alas, more bad news for conservative Republicans and Libertarians. It seems that those Obama administration financial incentives for home purchases have increased housing sales for the first time in three years. Funny how those government investments in the economy that aren't supposed to stimulate the economy actually do.

I suppose it's always possible that some of our Libertarian friends in the local blogosphere can always find some real estate brokers appointed to the Obama administration and somehow argue on the basis of it that this increase in sales is actually an inside job and a chimera.

UPDATE

Predictably Tyler Nixon, a writer at Delaware Libertarian, is loath to attribute any part of this good news to government intervention into the marketplace. He writes:

LOL. Yeah, this libertarian Republican is crying himself to sleep that the housing market (the one still largely free of government manipulation...a free market, if you will) is coming on strong, just as personal savings rates are on the rise and there is emerging an aversion to individual over-leveraging, much less leveraging generally, in oonsumer credit.

But notice what the Financial Times says:

New house sales in the US jumped by 11 per cent in June, providing some of the strongest evidence yet that the market has bottomed out after being savaged for three years.

There are increasing signs that the combined impact of falling prices and low mortgage rates, along with aggressive government incentives, is driving people back to the market and ­stirring sales. (emphasis mine)

My the contortions some people will go through to not admit they are wrong.

clipped from www.dollarsandsense.org New house sales in the US jumped by 11 per cent in June, providing some of the strongest evidence yet that the market has bottomed out after being savaged for three years. There are increasing signs that the combined impact of falling prices and low mortgage rates, along with aggressive government incentives, is driving people back to the market and ­stirring sales. The monthly rise was the sharpest in nearly nine years, far exceeding economists' expectations, and followed a revised increase of 2.4 per cent in the previous month. House sales rose to an adjusted annual rate of 384,000, the department of commerce said. "[This is] more evidence that a bottom is forming in the housing market, with new home sales confirming the signal provided by other housing data," said Alan Ruskin, a strategist at RBS Greenwich Capital.

Related articles by Zemanta

• New U.S. Home Sales Rise Sharply as Prices Fall (nytimes.com)
• Sharp jump in US new home sales (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Discretionary Spending Way Down, Especially Travel (businesspundit.com)

Libertarianism and Paternalism: Considering a Child’s Death

Here is one example of why I believe in limited state paternalism:

A central Wisconsin father charged with reckless homicide for not taking his dying daughter to a doctor told police that he believed God would heal her and that he thought she was simply sleeping when she became unconscious.

Madeline Neumann died on March 23, 2008, from undiagnosed diabetes on the floor of the family's rural Weston home as people surrounded the 11-year-old girl and prayed. Someone called 911 when she stopped breathing.

These stories occur with a disturbing frequency in the US. A parent exercising his or her freedom of religion and perceived paternal rights trusts God to cure their child and, unsurprisingly, the Almighty doesn't come through. Then the state prosecutes as it should:

Prosecutors contend her father, Dale Neumann, had a legal duty to take his weakened daughter to a doctor. A videotape of his interview with police after her death was shown to jurors during his trial Wednesday before prosecutors rested their case.

The Wikipedia entry about paternalism makes an interesting comparison and observation:

Opponents of paternalism, such as John Stuart Mill, claim that liberty supersedes safety in terms of actions that only affect oneself. Advocates of paternalistic policies claim that an overarching moral system overrides personal freedom in some circumstances, such as a religious, ethical, or philosophical doctrine, and will argue that while it is not moral to deprive someone of his or her liberty in a general situation, it is correct in that specific instance.

Notice that the paternalist in this instance has at least one more principle than liberty operating that could mitigate the actions of those who act on their liberty in extremis: the principle of doing no harm ("safety"). Dale Neumann, however, acted only on his religious liberty:

In the interview with Everest Metro Police Department detective Scott Sleeter, Neumann described the weeks leading up to Madeline's death, when he said she was a "little weak and a little slower," something he attributed to puberty. Her condition deteriorated, and by the day before her death, he said, Madeline could not walk or talk.

"We just trusted the Lord for complete healing," he said. "We didn't really sense it was like a life-and-death situation. We figured there was something really fighting in her body. We asked people to join with us in prayer agreement."

Neumann said it never crossed his mind that his daughter might have lost consciousness.

"She was just sleeping," Neumann said. "I didn't believe at all that the Lord would even allow her to pass."

Had the state known about the situation, I believe the state would have been utterly justified to intervene well before little Madeline Neumann died. Accordingly, I am saying that there certain situations when the state knows better than the individual. One doesn't have to do much thinking to imagine other examples (e.g. some special needs adults, some children and some parents as reflected in child labor laws).

Now I do not want to saddle all self-proclaimed Libertarians with the claim that they all would hold someone like Dale Neumann acted totally within his rights and that the prosecution of him is an outrage. But I will make these observations about those Libertarians who agree with me on this matter:

• They would be loath to admit that they too are limited state paternalists
  
• They are virtually silent about cases like this one
  
• When the state does intervene before the child dies, they almost never ("never" actually in my limited reading) declare that the state acted appropriately
  
• They are reluctant to name and explicate the principles by which the state can legitimately act paternalistically and curtail the liberty of an individual (I will say more about this reluctance in a later post)
  

But some Libertarians do oppose paternalism in any situation:

Libertarians are seen as generally being opponents of paternalism. Few political theorists, even libertarians, have ever completely rejected paternalism.^{[citation needed]} Robert Nozick, who is generally seen as a founding father of modern libertarianism, admits no exception : the State is acting paternalistically each time it presupposes to know better than people what is in their best interest. This leads Nozick to justify the moral permissibility of slavery.

Imagine that. It's better that thousands of Madeline Neumanns die than that the state curtail the liberty somewhat of their parents. That is to take the principle of liberty on a consistency holiday. Emerson is much to the point on such people:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds….

Beware of Tanning Beds

Reader beware!

clipped from news.yahoo.com International cancer experts have moved tanning beds and ultraviolet radiation into the top cancer risk category deeming both to be definite causes of cancer. For years, scientists have described tanning beds and ultraviolet radiation as "probable carcinogens." A new analysis of about 20 studies concludes the risk of skin cancer jumps by 75 percent when people start using tanning beds before age 30. The new classification means tanning beds and ultraviolet radiation are definite causes of cancer, alongside tobacco, the hepatitis B virus and chimney sweeping, among others. The research was published online in the medical journal Lancet Oncology on Wednesday by experts at the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, the cancer arm of the World Health Organization.

GOP Congressperson Warns Health Care Reform will Involve Murdering the Elderly

Is there no depth of demagoguery to which the enemies of health care reform won’t sink? This GOP genius now accuses the Obama and Democratic plans for health reform of planning to “put to death” senior citizens. The labelers—have they no shame?

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com The contest to be the member of Congress saying the dumbest possible things about health care has just gotten ratcheted up about a thousand more notches, thanks to North Carolina Representative Virginia Foxx. Anyway, today she came up with a brand new health care reform objection when she said that the Republican health care plan -- whatever that is! -- would "make sure we bring down the cost of health care for all Americans and that ensures affordable access for all Americans and is pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government."

Thurman Adams’ Campaign Funds

Readers should consult the News Journal's story "Money matters in quick election: 19th district candidates pleased with fundraising." The story concerns the financial status of the four candidates now running in the special election for the former state Senator Thurman Adams' seat.

What interests me are the closing paragraphs of the story:

One campaign account that will mostly sit dormant this year is [Thurman] Adams' own political fund, which reported a balance of just under $40,000 in December.

Even though Mervine served as her father's campaign treasurer the last time he ran, in 2006, the most she could transfer to her own campaign is $600, said state Commissioner of Elections Elaine Manlove.

The remaining money can be donated to other candidates or the state party, which is regulated under donation limits, or to charities to close out the account, Manlove said.

Mervine said no final decision has been made about Adams' account. "That will be a family decision," she said. (emphasis mine)

Polly Adams Mervine is running for her deceased father's seat and she is also campaign treasurer of his now defunct campaign account.

Two things strike me as odd about this arrangement. Ms. Mervine is running for office and she has at her disposal $40,000 to dispense with as she mostly wishes—giving the money to candidates, the state party and charities—and yet this doesn't constitute a conflict of interest in Delaware? Isn't there the possibility of (or at least the perception of) Ms. Mervine giving candidates money from her father's account that will in return give money to her campaign? The same could occur with charities: Ms. Mervine could give money to a charity and an individual associated with that charity could in turn give money to her campaign. I'm not saying that Ms. Mervine would engage in this kind of activity, but my question is why is such an apparent conflict of interest allowed to exist?

Second, what is this business about Thurman Adam's family deciding how his campaign funds will be dispensed? It's not the family's money; it wasn't part of an inheritance. This is money donated by individuals and, possibly, by lobbyists and PACs to be used for a specific political purpose. Shouldn't the money be offered back to the donors first and what is left over be dispensed by some agent within the Democratic Party that is not a family member?

A Porcupine Freedom Festival: First Thoughts on Libertarians and Libertarianism

Apparently, Delaware Libertarians Steve Newton and Tyler Nixon over at Delaware Libertarian didn't make the Libertarian Porcupine Freedom Festival this year, hosted by the Free State Project:

He fled the "People's Republic of Massachusetts" to escape tyranny. Now he strides the campground in a plaid kilt and mirror shades, an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle across his torso, an immense Scottish sword sheathed between his shoulders.

Out here, though, the only signs of danger are the ones warning drivers to watch out for moose. Could it be he senses a threat we're not seeing? (link)

I emphasized the gun in the passage because in my experience Libertarians are unusually preoccupied with guns: owning them, obsessively protecting their rights to them from perceived threats, and imagining government-wide conspiracies to confiscate them. I'm sure not every Libertarian is so preoccupied with the theme--Steve Newton has written only a few analyses of the topic that happily fall within the spectrum of sanity—but the preoccupation at the Tea Parties, for example, was duly noted from many sources.

Of course, even to mention this obsession is to risk attack from a Libertarian wielding the supposition that you want to take their gun away. And if you dare suggest that perhaps a decent waiting period for obtaining a handgun to reduce the chances that a dangerous felon or a spouse-abuser would get one would show sound judgment, you risk being called a "socialist" or "collectivist" or "statist" or some other pejorative catchword that Libertarians transparently substitute for critical analysis. You are a danger. And nothing seems more dangerous than to be perceived as a danger by people who like brandish their guns and see you as an enemy to their rights to own them.

Guns, guns, and more guns:

They circle around one activist's PT Cruiser to test tactics for dealing with government's front-line troops. "How will you perform when confronted by the police?" the schedule of events for the session asks. "You'll know once you practice."

Dozens walk through Porc Fest with handguns hanging from their waists, an unexpected sight on the way to mini-golf. (link)

That's quite an image. Toting guns to play mini golf. I know that if I had my wife and child at the mini golf course and a bunch of gun-toting people showed up, I would be frightened and leave. That's something else I have perceived about many Libertarians. They don't care one iota how much they shock others. Notice how the Delaware Libertarian Tyler Nixon characterizes liberal progressives (i.e., "neo-liberals") and President Barack Obama:

Yeah, that's right Democrat neo-liberals (and all you Bushies too, while I'm at it)...YOU. ARE. FASCISTS.

If you have any soul, repent now. Actively renounce head fascist Barack Obama. (emphasis Tyler Nixon's)

Imagine that. Liberal progressive Americans and President Barack Obama are the same as Mussolini. And there is not a hint of qualification from the Delaware Libertarian Tyler Nixon in his shocking post. Steve Newton certainly keeps extreme company.

Shocking and frightening people are apparently an inherent good for some Libertarians:

Others have organized a crew to pick up garbage around a Manchester playground with handguns strapped to their hips, to test the right to bear arms. (link)

Would you let your child play in a playground that has people with guns strapped to their bodies? Wouldn't you be frightened to let your children play there? Some Libertarians seem more concerned about being provocative than being civilized in the most rudimentary ways.

While the actions and positions of Libertarians can seem frightening and even potentially dangerous, they are just as often petty:

Free State activists have campaigned furiously against measures perceived as emblematic of excessive government, like a mandatory seatbelt bill and budget hikes. (link)

Debates about budget hikes are very important and honest differences can surround them. But seat-belt laws and, let me add, motorcycle helmet laws?

This is something I don't get about Libertarians. They seem to think that almost any government intrusion is ipso facto bad. That virtually none are beneficial. But surely that seat belts and motorcycle helmets save lives and people from serious injury is uncontroversial to any rational person. I have even heard Libertarians argue to the point of shouting that laws requiring the use of car seats for children were a serious assault on their liberty as parents. Imagine that. Because they hold personal liberty in extremis (as a fetish, in my view), they would willingly let many children risk death and serious injury, children which could be saved by a law only intended to protect them. I think that is bizarre.

I am going to examine Libertarians, Libertarianism and the Libertarian strain in the major parties (as well as my own Libertarian position on some issues) from time to time in the weeks ahead. These matters deserve close and critical attention.

Cheney Wanted to Use Military to Arrest Terror Suspects in the US

Republican Party superstar Dick Cheney, while acting as Vice President, actually wanted President Bush to order troops to arrest terror suspects in 2002 in Buffalo, NY. This is a clear violation of the constitution, although Cheney and his attorney David Addington argued that the President could ignore the constitution using his war powers authority.

Remarkably, Bush showed sounder judgment at the time and nixed the idea. In the end, the FBI had no problem effecting the arrest.

Yet another strange tale from the Bush administration.

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com The Bush administration in 2002 considered sending U.S. troops into a Buffalo, N.Y., suburb to arrest a group of terror suspects in what would have been a nearly unprecedented use of military power, The New York Times reported. Vice President Dick Cheney and several other Bush advisers at the time strongly urged that the military be used to apprehend men who were suspected of plotting with al Qaida, who later became known as the Lackawanna Six, the Times reported on its Web site Friday night. It cited former administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. The proposal advanced to at least one-high level administration meeting, before President George W. Bush decided against it. Dispatching troops into the streets is virtually unheard of. The Constitution and various laws restrict the military from being used to conduct domestic raids and seize property.

CNN Crackpot Lou Dobbs Continues to Raise Questions about Obama's Birth Certificate

Even though his own network (through a substitute host on his own show) thoroughly debunked the birther nonsense, CNN crackpot Lou Dobbs continues to raise questions about Obama's birth certificate.

Why CNN continues to employ this crank and passes him off as a responsible journalist escapes all reason. My guess is that he has good ratings and CNN is only concerned about its profits and not its journalistic integrity.

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com On Tuesday, we noted that CNN host Lou Dobbs was doing his part to keep alive the conspiracy theory that President Obama is not an American citizen (AKA the "birther" theory). On Dobbs' radio show, he speculated: "I'm starting to think we have a document issue. You suppose he's un... no, I won't even use the word undocumented, it wouldn't be right." Today, Dobbs hit back at his critics, calling them "limp-minded, lily-livered lefties" who attacked him only because he "had the temerity to inquire as to where the birth certificate was and why the president of the United States would not turn over that birth certificate to the national media and end the noise." CNN has a very serious Lou Dobbs problem on its hands," said Eric Burns, President of Media Matters. "All eyes are on CNN to see how the network will handle a host who has clearly become a stain on its journalistic credibility.

Related articles by Zemanta

• CNN Responds to Lou Dobbs Radio Waves About Barack Obama Birthplace (mediabistro.com)
• 'Birthers' won't let go of Obama claim (msnbc.msn.com)
• Liz Cheney Dances the Birther Two-Step (usnews.com)
• A Lou Point In American History - Dobbs And The Birthers (crooksandliars.com)
• Lou Dobbs: "[L]imp-Minded, Lily-Livered Lefties" Attacked Me Because I Had The "Temerity To Inquire As To Where The Birth Certificate Was" (VIDEO, AUDIO) (huffingtonpost.com)

Tea Party Activist Uses Racist Picture of Obama

Experience some of the tea party activists up close and personal as I have done and you won't be the least bit surprised that one prominent member of their "movement" forwarded this racist and red-baiting picture of President Obama.

It was supposed to be "funny stuff."

But pressed on what was funny about an image that plays on racist stereotypes about Africans, McKalip declined to say, instead offering to talk about why he opposes Obama's health-care proposals.

"I have a busy day," he said eventually, before ending the call.

clipped from tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com On Sunday night, Dr. David McKalip forwarded to fellow members of a Google listserv affiliated with the Tea Party movement the image below. Above it, he wrote: "Funny stuff." He's a Florida neurosurgeon, who serves as a member of the American Medical Association's House of Delegates. He's also an energetic conservative opponent of health-care reform. McKalip founded the anti-reform group Doctors For Patient Freedom, as well as what seems to be a now defunct group called Cut Taxes Now. Last month he joined GOP congressmen Tom Price and Phil Gingrey, among others, for a virtual town hall to warn about the coming "government takeover of medicine." Asked about the email in a brief phone interview with TPMmuckraker, McKalip said he believes that by depicting the president as an African witch doctor, the "artist" who created the image "was expressing concerns that the health-care proposals [made by President Obama] would make the quality of medical care worse in our country."

Related articles by Zemanta

• Study Links Health Care Costs to Job Losses (politicalwire.com)
• DNC Targets DeMint In TV Ad As Health Care Fights Heat Up (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Internal GOP Memo Shows GOP Not Interested In Health Care Reform (oliverwillis.com)

The Birthers Deserve Comedic Treatment

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Born Identity
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

Check out this info about the "Birthers."

Related articles by Zemanta

• Some thoughts on the depths of idiocy (themoderatevoice.com)
• Jon Stewart Calls Out Lou Dobbs on The Daily Show (VIDEO) (blippitt.com)

Senators Hatch and Kyl: Mind Your Own Business

I'll be frank. I was sorry that the sports betting bill passed in the Delaware Assembly and Gov. Markell signed it into law. I thought it would be bad for Delaware and would reinforce the serious problem of gambling addiction with the subsequent societal and economic costs that follow the addiction. But when I read this in the News Journal, my Delawarean blood began to boil:

Two Republican U.S. senators are urging U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to block Delaware's sports betting plans and oppose New Jersey's efforts to challenge a federal law restricting such wagering.

Sports betting in Delaware "threatens the integrity of the pastimes our citizens enjoy and the nature of the games they follow," wrote Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Jon Kyl of Arizona in a letter. "Indeed, the expansion of state-sponsored betting will promote gambling throughout our culture, particularly among young people." …

Hatch and Kyl point to the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which banned sports betting nationally but was grandfathered in states that had already dabbled in the wagering, including Delaware.

I suppose the argument is that this isn't merely a state's right issue because the betting can occur across state lines. If I am wrong about that, then why isn't this a state's right issue? In any case, I resent these Senators trying to defeat for Delaware what should be, in my view, defeated within Delaware.

In the US You Can Be Fired for Who You Marry

I think that one of the greatest injustices in the USA is the tenuous nature of employment. In some states you can be fired without any cause whatsoever.

Here is a story of man who is fired from his job simply because of who he married even though by all accounts he did a good job. Something completely outside of his employment became the cause for firing him. How is that just? How is that acceptable? Why aren't there laws that protect people from such capricious terminations?

clipped from news.yahoo.com A South Florida town manager who married a porn star last year was fired at an emergency meeting after the mayor and council members learned about it. Fort Myers Beach town council voted 5-0 to fire Scott Janke "without cause" after Mayor Larry Kiker called the Tuesday night meeting. "At no time did we make a judgment call on the activities of Mr. Janke or his wife," Kiker told The Associated Press. "It's a matter of how effective he becomes after this situation. How much disruption there is." Adult Industry News recently reported that Janke's wife, Anabela Mota Janke, goes by the stage name Jazella Moore. "Our heads are held high," Scott Janke said. "We have nothing to be embarrassed about. We've done nothing wrong." Janke said he and his wife were married in October and are taking care of their three teenage children Kiker acknowledged that Janke had violated no rules or laws and added that he had done a good job for the island town that had about 6,500 people

US Taxpayers Get a 23% Return

Boo hoo for you conservative Republicans and Libertarians. Instead of the dire consequences you predicted, the bailout is already starting to work for both the companies it helped and the taxpayers. Goldman Sachs is ALREADY giving us a 23% return on our tax dollars. We are ALREADY making a good return on the bailout--just like what happened in Sweden.

How sad for you.

clipped from www.bloomberg.com Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s repayments to the government of last year’s bailout money, including an agreement today to repay warrants, generated a 23 percent annualized return for U.S. taxpayers. Goldman Sachs agreed to the Treasury’s request for $1.1 billion to repay warrants the government received when it invested $10 billion in the New York-based firm last October. The payment is in addition to $318 million in preferred dividends. That 23 percent return compares with the 42 percent surge in Goldman Sachs’s share price since October, and the 5.1 percent gain in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Goldman’s decision follows criticism of the bank by lawmakers who questioned its decision to set aside a record $11.4 billion to pay employees in the first half of the year. The company’s warrant transaction “was the best deal for taxpayers yet,” said Linus Wilson, a finance professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

Almost 5 Million More Americans Have Lost Health Insurance Since September 08

I for one am weary of hearing all the nonsense from those who defend the USA's private system of health coverage. There is so much about it the system that is failed and is indisputably so when the facts are examined. Surely, the empirical record has established this truth: the private health care system is not up to the task of covering nearly all Americans and in fact benefits from eliminating many people from its rolls.

Even as we get this dire report about 5 million Americans losing their health coverage, we also got reports today about health insurance companies making record profits. Only social Darwinists can tolerate such twin realities.

clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com Since September of last year, nearly five million adults have lost their insurance. A survey of more than 29,000 individuals in June by Gallup shows that 16 percent of Americans over the age of 18 are currently without health insurance. That number reflects what the survey's authors describe as a "small but measurable uptick in the percentage of uninsured adults." Indeed, the average number of uninsured adults recorded by Gallup in 2008 was 14.8 percent. In September 2008, the monthly total recorded was at a yearly low of 13.9 percent. While the difference in percentage may seem small, the aggregate number of additional uninsured is vast. According to 2007 U.S. Census data, the population of those 18 years or older stood at 228,196,823. By using that figure, in September of 2008, the number of uninsured adults would have totaled approximately 31.7 million. Today, the figure stands at 36.5 million -- meaning that 4.8 million adults have, in less than a year, lost their insurance coverage.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Private Health Care Coverage at 50-Year Low (abcnews.go.com)