…to know everything. Except what is worth knowing. Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands.
~Oscar Wilde
This is worth knowing…
Happy Birthday by Piper
UPDATE: I got this from my wife, who’d posted it on Facebook. She let me know she found it on the 4Simpsons blog.
The words of Jeremiah Wright, the wrong words he’s spoken and made a central part of his message for the 20 years Barak Hussein Obama has considered him a spiritual leader, to some, they are truth.
Mr. Wright, for I do not consider him to be worthy of reverence or title beyond that of a normal man, is not the only person to preach those words either.
They are a variant of the philosophy and world view known as Liberation Theology, specifically, Black Liberation Theology.
From GotQuestions.org:
Simply put, Liberation Theology is an attempt to interpret Scripture through the plight of the poor. It is largely a humanistic doctrine. It started in South America in the turbulent 1950′s when Marxism was making great gains among the poor because of its emphasis on the redistribution of wealth, allowing poor peasants to share in the wealth of the colonial elite and thus upgrade their economic status in life. As a theology, it has very strong Roman Catholic roots.
Liberation Theology was bolstered in 1968 at the Second Latin American Bishops Conference which met in Medellin, Colombia. The idea was to study the Bible and to fight for social justice in Christian (Catholic) communities. Since the only governmental model for the redistribution of the wealth in a South American country was a Marxist model (gained in the turbulent 1950′s), the redistribution of wealth to raise the economic standards of the poor in South America took on a definite Marxist flavor. Since those who had money were very reluctant to part with it in any wealth redistribution model, the use of a populist (read poor) revolt was encouraged by those who worked most closely with the poor. As a result, the Liberation Theology model was mired in Marxist dogma and revolutionary causes…
…Liberation Theology has moved from the poor peasants in South America to the poor blacks in America. We now have Black Liberation Theology being preached in the black community. It is the same Marxist, revolutionary, humanistic philosophy found in South American Liberation Theology and has no more claim for a scriptural basis than the South American model has.
The race problem in America is real, that is undeniably true. But I do not think it is true in the way many assume it to be.
First, slavery was an inexcusable evil and a dark time for America. Today, many of us can trace roots back to those who participated, freely or under coercion, in slavery in America.
But at the same time, many of us can’t. And a significant majority have ancestors from the both the ideological North and South in their blood, as well as those who had no part at all. There has been significant immigration by all races to America after the conclusion of the Civil War and the active work of slavery.
The continuing and very real race issue was summed up by a new friend of Ed Kaitz’s. Ed had been spending time with the Vietnamese immigrants who’d settled in the Bayous of Louisiana, and while flying home he met a an American Black who’d been studying psychology and working as a prison psychologist in Missouri.
Ed tells it like this:
His answer, only a few words, not only floored me but became sort of a razor that has allowed me ever since to slice through all of the rhetoric regarding race relations that Democrats shovel our way during election season:
“We’re owed and they aren’t.”
In short, he concluded, “they’re hungry and we think we’re owed. It’s crushing us, and as long as we think we’re owed we’re going nowhere.”
“They” are the Vietnamese Ed had spent time with, “we” are the gentleman’s own race, his fellow American Blacks.
Ed concludes his commentary on Obama’s inability to recognize the powerful forces of good in his life and the state of racism in America with this call to recognize real sources of ability and equality, accomplishment and future:
We now know that Barack Obama really has no interest in the “audacity of hope.” With his race speech, Obama became a peddler of angst, resentment and despair. Too bad he doesn’t direct that angst at the liberal establishment that has sold black people a bill of goods since the 1960s. What Obama seems angry about is America itself and what it stands for; the same America that has provided fabulous opportunities for what my black friend called “hungry” minorities. Strong families, self-reliance, and a spirit of entrepreneurship should be held up as ideals for all races to emulate.
Read Obama’s Anger at American Thinker.
Doug Ross, at Opinion Journal, quotes Nicholas Stix in Mens News Daily regarding Barak Hussein Obama’s run against Alan Keyes. Regarding Barak’s religion Nicholas has this to say:
…Obama’s closest religious advisers — Fr. Pfleger, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, and Illinois State Sen. James Meeks, who moonlights as the pastor of Chicago’s Salem Baptist Church – may have quotes from Scripture always handy, but are theologically closer to Karl Marx and black nationalism, than to Christianity… The transcendent-non-transcendent motto the Rev. Wright has given Trinity is, “Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian.”
Yes, we need a Marxist president. Exactly what the country needs.
More information on Black Liberation ideology.
LA Times speaks with moral relativism and class warfare.
Roger Simon writes, in homage to Andrew Goodman “Barak, I didn’t do it for this”
And what about the New Black Panthers?
In a previous article, Priorities Of Preservation, I discussed the importance Christianity puts on the entirety of an person: body, mind, and spirit.
While the world, in a misguided and myopic view constrained by sin, only really cares for the preservation of the body. And through ignorance, loses the whole person.
In a report released last week which most have already heard of or commented on, it was noted that 1/4 of the US Teenage Female population is infected with one of several Sexually Transmitted Diseases.
The immediate cry was that Abstinence Education must be completely abandoned and further explanation of the ins and outs of safe sex be taught to every child.
I find those making that argument to be their own worst enemies, and I am determined to sit and watch them tear themselves apart trying to make sense of what they’ve said.
Better have a good belt to hold these sides in. The problem is, this is no laughing matter: peoples lives are at stake.
At the blog dbTechno (“Providing Science And Technology News Since 1996″) under the headline “Teens Having Sex, Getting STD’s Due To Lack Of Knowledge” (strongly caution) there is a small picture of three bikini-clad young women shaking their derrières before the camera. This was the picture Google had selected on it’s news aggregator to highlight the several articles on this topic this morning.
In our sexified culture it is considered “emancipated” for a woman to be so “comfortable” with her sexuality that she feels willing to flaunt her body either scantily clothed or free of clothes before the whole world.
I don’t think that it is a sign of a healthy self-image that women are willing and even choose to clothe themselves that way.
I am not for arbitrary requirements in clothing, but it is saddening that, younger and younger, we are compelling out daughters and sisters to choose between frumpy and scandalous.
Removing their modesty with bits of lycra and spandex.
Revealing their bodies for the eyes of all the world.
And then we worry that too many of them are having sex.
I think a healthy self image will result in true self-worth, where the woman will not feel compelled to dress “sexy” to get the approval and acceptance of others.
When a woman is dressing revealingly they are revealing their insecurity, not their assuredness.
The Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board this morning published an article titled “Abstinence-Only Education Needs To Go” (no scandalous images here) in which they completely demolish their own claims, twice.
First, early in the article they lay claim to the moral high ground:
From here, it would be easy to play the blame game. But that would be unproductive. It doesn’t matter if you’re the pro-sex education or abstinence-only type, the statistics speak for themselves, and what matters most is that something be done to make our children more sexually responsible and safe.
And then, in the very next paragraph:
Let’s start with re-tooling the failed abstinence-only approach backed by the Bush administration. Let’s teach teenagers about contraceptives and other precautions that could help protect them if they are sexually active.
Yes, lets avoid the blame game, and lets look at the facts. The Bush Administration has indeed backed and supported an abstinence-only education approach, because no one who practices abstinence contracts an STD, no one. It make sense to back a winner. But how many education programs has the Bush Administrations policy actually affected? Good question.
I would be willing to bet that with state policy, and NEA policy, and DoE policy, there is precious little abstinence-only education going on in the public schools of America.
The article then goes on to make an astounding statement. I very nearly cheered, at work, when I read this:
Abstinence teaching has its merits. It not only promotes a sure-proof defense against STDs and unwanted pregnancies, but also the idea that sexual activity requires a high level of maturity and understanding. An adolescent who engages in “protected” sex prematurely may not run the risk of physical infections, but could be exposed to long-term emotional and psychological damage.
And then gets to the…
BOTTOM LINE: Place more emphasis on contraceptives and STDs in sex-education classes.
And they reached that how?
With this simple caveat they have attempted to justify their entire tortured argument, and by extension, rationalize their continued support for the torture of young minds and bodies with illness both physical and psychological:
Like it or not, half of the teenage girls in this country are already sexually active, according to the study. Something has to be done to make them wiser in their choices, or we soon could have an even bigger public health crisis on our hands.
Do they not see the cruel irony?
Because we’re a bunch hapless, helpless dolts who’ve bought the lie that children are capable of making their own informed decisions regarding sex and mature relationships.
Because we’re a bunch of laissez-faire non-present parental units who feel no particular responsibility to counter the culture’s claims that boys are animals and girls are meat.
Because we’re a bunch of lazy do-gooders who value intentions over actions and outcomes and are willing to allow our children to do whatever they please so long as it makes them feel good.
We will complete ignore what we already know to be true: that premature involvement in adult relationships, emotional and physical, will not only harm the body but will also damage the mind.
So long as we tell enough of them to use condoms, we are perfectly willing to let them hop into bed with any yahoo or floozy who comes along.
Yea, that’s advanced society and parental love for you.
See also:
The Condom Conspiracy: Sex, Lies, STIs and Teenage Girls – the evangelical outpost
While we have Planned Parenthood and sex educators claiming that condoms can “offer effective protection against most serious sexually transmitted infections” the report finds there’s no scientific basis for that claim.
STD Data Comes As No Surprise, Area Teenagers Say – Laura Sessions Stepp and Katherine Shaver in the Washington Post
The Marrow girls offered several reasons why teenagers have sex.
“It’s to fit in, peer pressure,” Christine said, noting that virgins are often mocked. Also, “sex sells on TV.”
Khadijah chimed in that some young girls found their inspiration in the popular R&B singer Rihanna, whose latest album is titled “Good Girl Gone Bad.”
But Christina suggested something closer to home. “Write this down,” she said. “Bad parenting.”
The New York Stock Exchange has been down a lot over the past couple of months. It’s down about fifteen percent from its high of just over 14,000. Many people are wondering why and how far it is going to fall. This is my attempt to explain why it has been falling.
Our story actually begins in the housing and sub-prime loan markets. As many of you know, mortgage companies don’t actually have the millions and millions of dollars they loan to homebuyers. What they do instead is make a loan, say for $250,000, and try to find some investor (generally a bank or some other financial entity) to buy the mortgage. The company serves as a middle man between the homebuyer and large financial institutions.
What has begun happening recently is firms have been buying large numbers of mortgages of all different sizes and interest rates and rolling them into one package, kind of like a mutual fund. They then began to sell shares of this “fund” to investors and investment banks. This has never been done before. People on Wall Street have never been able to buy shares in a mortgage security because mortgage securities didn’t exist.
Now investments are rated based upon their safety as an investment. For example, a triple AAA rating means that the stock or mutual fund you are buying is pretty safe and unlikely to fall far in value – wiping out your investment. It also means the return will probably not be as high as other investments. A single A rating means that the stock isn’t as safe as the triple AAA, but could potentially have a higher return.
Well the various companies that have created the rating system needed to rate these mortgage securities. In some cases they gave triple A ratings, in others double and single A ratings. Then the mortgage securities were marketed based on these ratings.
So like any bubble, there was far too much exuberance in the market for these funds and they were overpriced and overrated. That was one problem. The deeper problem, however, is that mortgage companies began making lots of bad loans (e.g. requiring no down payments from the people they were lending to, not checking credit history, proof of income, etc.) This was not a big problem until the housing market started to slump.
When the values of houses started falling, those people who had taken a $400,000 mortgage out on a $400,000 house found themselves with a $400,000 mortgage on a house that was now worth $350,000. Not a good place to be. So they just walked away (that means the bank foreclosed on their house.) But no one is in a good situation here. The bank is left with a house worth less than the loan it made and these people are down a home. There were a couple of other issues about variable interest rates that I won’t go into here. The point is that there was a huge increase in the number of people defaulting on their mortgage loans.
So big picture, these mortgage based securities that were being doled out like mutual funds, started collapsing. All of a sudden people began to realize that these securities were not as valuable as they had initially thought. So the price began to plummet. And to make things worse, no one really knows how to evaluate the worth of these securities. The fact that they are so new and the rates of defaults on loans are variable makes people afraid to purchase the securities; even after they have fallen substantially in price.
Here’s where it affects the credit market. Some of the chief buyers of these securities were giant investment banks, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley, etc. The investment bankers at these firms made varying degrees of stupid decisions. At Bear Stearns, for example, the investment bankers bought the securities on margin, which means they were borrowing money against their current assets to buy more shares of the securities. Though always a risky idea, if your investments are good it’s not a problem. Once these securities started crashing though, the market froze. No one was willing to buy but everyone wanted to sell. So Bear Sterns went from having 800 billion dollars worth of securities in its investment branch to 300 billion dollars worth in a week or two (Note, these are not the literal numbers but they are characteristic of the idea). And, because they had bought on margin, they still owed the hundreds of billions of dollars they had borrowed.
This is why the market is unhappy. Hundreds of billions of dollars have just disappeared. These are not literal paper dollars, but electronic dollars in the credit market. This is one of the reasons why it is difficult to take out new loans. The Federal Reserve has stepped in to try and fix the problem, but that is a completely different story.
What does this mean? Well, credit markets are in turmoil. No one knows how to value these securities. A number of lending companies have gone bankrupt. These financial problems affect the economy by limiting business’s and individual’s ability to borrow money for various projects. Don’t panic, it’s not the end of the world. Give the market time to sort itself out. We tend to overly concerned about the immediate present rather than the future. So what if one quarter has slow growth, or even negative growth? There will be hardship for some people, but the market will come back if left unhindered by government intervention. Also, it will come back quicker if consumer’s had more confidence. Consumer confidence tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy as to the performance of the market, at least in the short run. So be patient, things will get better.
…that if you can’t say anything nice about someone, you must be talking about Hillary Clinton.
~Jeff Foxworth, Blue Collar Comedy Tour…that if you can’t say anything substantive about anyone, you must be talking about Barak Hussein Obama.
~matthew, iPandora
In the Cleveland Plain Dealer Blog, V. David Sartin lays out differences in the two Democrat candidates health-care plans.
Can two practical failures, moral evils, and spectacularly bad ideas be compared?
Hillary Clinton and Barak Hussein Obama can claim as many times as she pleases that their plan will only cost X, but when the plan is applied, there is no telling how high the actual cost will go.
A key fact of every other socialized health-care plan across the globe is that the actual costs far exceed the proposed cost.
And is it really going to be cheaper? In my current insurance setup I (a single, healthy person) am paying about $40 from each paycheck of $1200 (or 3.5%) every two weeks. Meanwhile I am paying about 15-20% in taxes from that same paycheck.
The most conservative estimates of the increase in fees due completely to taxes will be about double, with an expected load of 30-40% in taxes alone, most of this going to pay for the increased costs involved in Government shouldering the burden for health insurance.
Government is not efficient, it is really the antithesis of efficiency. If you were to give the government and a private company each a dollar, the private company will accomplish more with their dollar than the government. Much more, even with the corporate salaries and such. A business which does not use it’s dollars well fails.
Government has no such check. It can use it’s dollars as wastefully as it pleases and there is nothing to stop it besides oversight by you and I. And government does not like us watching it, despite it’s own desire to watch us and our business more and more closely.
Even beyond the obvious efficiency issues though, is a constitutional and moral issue: Is it the governments responsibility to provide health-care to each and every one of it’s citizens.
Individually we are each very much for personal freedom: allow us to do as we please, please.
If we surrender control of our health choices to the government, are we not giving an extremely powerful entity control over our lives to an unprecedented extent?
A private health insurance company can ask us to live more healthily, can raise our rates based on our risk factors and history. But it cannot compel us with force of law and punishment besides increased costs and denied service.
The government can.
And as the government seeks always to expand it’s grasp in every way: say as much as you like that it will not abuse it’s power. Government will compel us, with force of law and real punishment, to live according to it’s ideal of health.
Now is that freedom?
Or is having universal, expensive health-care really worth that cost?
McCain may not be with conservatives on many social issues, but he’s definitely with us on fiscal issues. He’ll at least work hard to keep America from going broke.
Three articles across the internet today highlight the heart of this issue: the willingness of the candidates to spend money which you’ve given them in self-serving pork projects.
Buying votes with your cash.
First, from the Washington Post: Candidates Earmarks Worth Millions:
Working with her New York colleagues in nearly every case, [Sen. Hillary] Clinton [(NY)] supported almost four times as much spending on earmarked projects as her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), whose $91 million total placed him in the bottom quarter of senators who seek earmarks, the study showed.
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the likely GOP presidential nominee, was one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending.
In the Boston Herald (winner of todays Most Absolutely Annoying And Alliterative Headline: Blustering Bubba Blasts Barak for Babbling Baloney) editorial, The Race For Earmarks, the editors note that Hillary sent $342 million to her own constituents, putting her in the top ten porkers. McCain, on the other hand, was against earmarks before that was even beginning to become popular.The porkers which inhabit Washington desire power. It is not altruism which drives them, but instead a compelling desire to get as many people subscribing to their ascendancy by giving them money.
But whose money do they use? Yours.
If it were their money there would not be an issue, except for the ethical implications of graft and cronyism and what they say of the character of the individual engaging in them.
Further insight into the candidates philosophies can be seen in who they get money for:
As a campaign issue, earmarks highlight significant differences in the spending philosophies of the top three candidates. Clinton has repeatedly supported earmarks as a way to bring home money for projects, while Obama adheres to a policy of using them only to support public entities.
McCain is using his blanket opposition to earmarked spending as a regular line of attack against Clinton, even running an Internet ad mocking her $1 million request for a museum devoted to the Woodstock music festival. Obama has been criticized for using a 2006 earmark to secure money for the University of Chicago hospital where his wife worked until last year.
McCain, for his seeming contempt for many social-conservative causes, respects the citizenry enough to protect their investment in government.
It reminds me of the story of Davy Crockett, who, when a disaster struck his home state while he was a member of Congress, and his constituents begged that he send federal money to help the stricken area, said that he would not.
He stated that money spent by the government can only be used in ways which benefit ALL citizens equally.
If only more in the current crop of public megalomaniacs servants would espouse this truism.
But the porkers currently running for the Democrat nomination do not.
The Scheming Communist Operative, Hillary, does what is best for her and only, ever, what is best for her. If this involves giving your money to someone she thinks can pave her way to power, that’s what she does.
The Idyllic Communist, Obama, only gives to “worthy causes”.
The problem is, people (you and I) are much more efficient and effective at getting money to worthy causes:
Hillary is a smart (not intelligent, just smart) and conniving operative with one goal, her own supremacy.
Obama is an intelligent and misguided idealist. He wants to solve all the world problems, but everything he claims for his plans have all been tried before, and failed. Over and over again.
The picture which comes to mind is that of Kranzy October, the Russian Revolution in “Red” October of 1917.
The idealists, mostly young Russians, many of the Jewish Russians seeking a Utopian society free of the perceived inequities of the Tzarist system followed headlong into the dismal black of Communist Russia. The smart ones saw chance of personal aggrandizement and turned coat. Spying on their idealist brethren and reporting false crimes until they were the only ones surviving. Lenin rose to power in this era not through altruism and idealism but through corruption and power-lust, scheming and buying his way to the top.
Hillary is a Lenin-type, while Obama is a type of the dead idealists.
Both are dead wrong in their goals, but each have their own reasons, methods, and paths to achieve the death of our Great Nation.
Obama is not naive, but he is not a leader.
Check his closet for skeletons.
Obama and Clinton being children:
There’s a bold line between idealism and fantasy,
neither of them have grown enough to know the difference.
With big thanks to Sweetness & Light.
McCain is the front runner, but he’s not won yet. America’s Mayor has endorsed him after ending his own bid to become America’s President. The Governator is expected to endorse him as early as today. (Politico)
McCain will be a “hold-your-nose-and-vote” nominee because even he will be preferable to any alternative.
It is telling that, following exit polls, we know that liberals and moderates voted for McCain in Florida, while conservatives voted for Romney.
Speaking of Romney, he has some tough choices to make: Will he write the big check?
Huckabee needs to get his personal vendetta against Romney out of his eyes, drop out of the race, and endorse the one man who will support a real conservative agenda who still has a chance of winning.
Liberals Anonymous is looking for new members:
Liberals Anonymous (LibAnon) is a nationwide organization of current, former, and recovering American liberals and Democrats. Its sole mission is to establish and maintain recovery programs designed to help similar individuals overcome the plethora of congenital illnesses inherent in postmodern American liberalism with which they are embittered. Liberals Anonymous accomplishes this worthy goal by making the idiosyncratic elemental disease nature of liberalism self-evident to the afflicted individual.
Back to Romney, and Hugh Hewitt. Ace of Spades apologizes for not getting it right…
I can’t keep knocking Hewitt for being a bit overly enthusiastic about being, ultimately, right. If some of us had seen the lay of the land as well as Hewitt and supported Romney as the best realistic consensus conservative candidate, we might not be in the position we’re in now.
…and endorses Romney.
Jay, do you truly think the media darling candidate is your candidate? Come on, you’re better than that. I know it.
And Orson Scott Card thinks religion may play a bigger part of this than we realize:
After the Iowa caucuses, an African-American friend of mine from Los Angeles wrote to me, scoffing at the idea that Obama’s victory there meant that a black man could now be elected president.
I thought he was too pessimistic. But then came Hillary’s “comeback” in New Hampshire.
I keep hearing about how the pollsters “got it so wrong” and how Hillary’s victory came from the Democratic regulars getting out the vote for her.
And Mitt Romney’s defeat was also laid at the feet of many causes, none of which sounded particularly solid to me. Yes, McCain is something of a “favorite son” in New Hampshire now. But he also has another “virtue” that Romney and Huckabee both lacked: He’s not openly religious.
I suspect that racial and religious prejudice are both playing more of a role than anyone is willing to admit.
Read Card’s latest WorldWatch.
Riehl ponders:
Has anyone stopped to think that if McCain gets the GOP nod, there will come a time when the party has to draft a platform with an obstinate, if not defiant, McCain – an often angry man with a history of holding conservatives in disdain?
We need speeches like this more often. Bob Corker, Senator from Tennessee, in debate on the tax rebate checks said:
“What I see in this package is nothing but a political stimulus,” said Corker. “It’s a stimulus to make the American people think that we, as a body, are doing something to actually cause the economy to be stronger.”
My chief argument against this package is that it is not tied to taxation. Those who pay no taxes will get as much as those who pay taxes. That is wrong.
This will tie economic stimulus and government largess together irrevocably. Government is a burden. A necessary burden, but a burden nonetheless. The way the government to affect the economy meaningfully is to lighten itself, not to quixotically throw money back to us who were compelled to surrender it to them in the first place. That is adding insult to injury.
Back to Romney. American Thinker asks why the other candidates hate Governor Romney. Some of the answers:
- He can win
- He isn’t beholden to special interest groups
- He believes America’s best days are ahead of it
And once more, from the American Thinker: What does that ACU score really mean for McCain?
So where did McCain differ from the ACU? The big areas were taxes, campaign finance reform, the environment and, most recently, immigration. There was also a smattering of support for trial lawyers; federal intervention in health, education, safety or voting issues; internationalism; and some social issues.
Barb has an excellent post on bringing Motherhood to it’s deserved place of honor. And it’s funny too.
The Clerk was obviously a career woman, poised, efficient, and
possessed of a high sounding title like,
‘Official Interrogator’ or ‘Town Registrar.’‘What is your occupation?’ she probed.
What made me say it? I do not know.
The words simply popped out.
‘I’m a Research Associate in the field of
Child Development and Human Relations.’The clerk paused, ball-point pen frozen in midair and
looked up as though she had not heard right.
See twistedlogic’s take: Mothers are worth a lot more than they’re paid.
And, McCain winning in Florida is NOT good news.
Either it pays for itself or it’s 4 billion of your dollars down the hole in 5 years.
The State of California (sometimes it’s more a state of mind than anything substantive) is facing a 14.5 billion dollar shortfall, and yet, in their reckless pursuit of assuaging all societal inequities, the majority of the Democrat Legislators and the Republican Governator are seeking to enact socialized medicine in California.
Using additional fees on each and every employer, worker, and hospital, plus a $1.75 tax hike on each pack of cigarettes, the system seeks to ensure universal coverage in the Golden State.
California’s big problem right now is that it’s legal climate has driven all meaningful business out of the state. It is getting more and more uneconomical to maintain a business in the state as stifling and confiscatory taxes, fees, and regulations increase alarmingly.
As businesses flee the state and close down, revenues will continue to decrease in an increasing trend.
California is a good example of liberal policy carried to it’s logical conclusion.
Soon, my parents and siblings and relatives will be waiting in line at the clinics to received government-mandated testing and/or procedures.
Think I’m getting a bit apocalyptic? What about the push to require the HPV vaccination of all girls? Somebody somewhere will have some golden idea that sounds great and looks like the “greater good” and someone else will believe them. That’s all it takes where there is no accountability and more stultifying bureaucracy.
The health care plan aims to extend insurance to roughly 70 percent of the state’s uninsured population by expanding government health programs, forcing businesses to provide coverage to workers or pay a fee to the state, and imposing new taxes on hospitals and tobacco. If the proposal wins the support of the Legislature, voters would have to approve a ballot initiative in November in order for it to become law.
In a best-case scenario, the plan’s revenues would cover its costs in the first year, Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill wrote in her review released Tuesday evening. However, by the fifth year, she estimates the program’s annual costs would exceed revenues by $300 million.
From the San Jose Mercury News.
Read more articles on this, from Google.
And what about the plans being touted by each and every Democrat running for president? If the State of California will suffer this badly, let us just tank the entire US economy while we’re at it.
Remember, reform is not worthwhile if it makes the problem worse.
Powered by WordPress | Theme: Aeros 2.0 by TheBuckmaker.com