For those of you who have swallowed the man-made global warming argument hook, line, and sinker take the time to read the following article. Notice the reference to China and India. They're booming right now and we're at 10.2% unemployment with a president and congress hell bent on busting us further with cap-and-trade/tax to "save" the environment.
Global warming consensus: garbage in, garbage out
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political AnalystNovember 29, 2009
As Air Force One heads to Copenhagen for the climate summit Dec. 9, it will presumably not make a U-turn while flying over the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia near Norwich, England. But perhaps it should. The 61 megabytes of CRU e-mails and documents made public by a hacker cast serious doubt on the ballyhooed consensus on man-made global warming that the Copenhagen summit was called to address.
The CRU has been a major source of data on global temperatures, relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the e-mails suggest that CRU scientists have been suppressing and misstating data and working to prevent the publication of conflicting views in peer-reviewed science periodicals. Some of the more pungent e-mails:
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
"Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4?"
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can't."
"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU temperature station data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"
You get the idea. The most charitable plausible explanation I have seen comes from the Atlantic's Megan McArdle. "The CRU's main computer model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish."
Australian geologist Ian Plimer, a global warming skeptic, is more blunt. The e-mails "show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded date for independent examination."
Global warming alarmist George Monbiot of the Guardian concedes that the e-mails "could scarcely be more damaging," adding, "I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them." He has called for the resignation of the CRU director.
All of which brings to mind the old computer geek's phrase: Garbage in, garbage out.
The Copenhagen climate summit was convened to get the leaders of nations to commit to sharp reductions in carbon dioxide emissions -- and thus sharp reductions in almost all energy usage, at huge economic cost -- in order to prevent disasters that supposedly were predicted with absolute certainty by a scientific consensus.
But that consensus was based in large part on CRU data that was, to take the charitable explanation, "complete rubbish" or, to take the more dire view, the product of deliberate fraud.
Quite possibly the CRU e-mailers were sincere in their belief that they were saving the planet. Like Al Gore, they wanted to convince the world's elites that the time for argument is over, the scientific consensus is clear and those who disagree can be dismissed as cranks (and should be disqualified from receiving research grants). If they had to cut a few corners, well, you have to break eggs to make an omelette.
For those of us who have long suspected that constructing scientific models of climate and weather is an enormously complex undertaking quite possibly beyond the capacity of current computer technology, the CRU e-mails are not so surprising.
Do we really suppose that anyone can construct a database of weather observations for the entire planet and its atmosphere adequate to make confident predictions of weather and climate 60 years from now? Predictions in which we have enough confidence to impose enormous costs on the American and world economies?
Copenhagen, despite Barack Obama's presence, seems sure to be a bust; there will be no agreement on mandatory limits on carbon emissions. Even if there were, it would probably turn out to be no more effective than the limits others agreed to in Kyoto in 1997. In any case, China and India are not going to choke off their dazzling economic growth to please Western global warming alarmists.
The more interesting question going forward is whether European and American governmental, academic and corporate elites, having embraced global warming alarmism with religious fervor, will be shaken by the scandalous CRU e-mails. They should be.
Michael Barone, The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His columns appear Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Obamacare Already Taking Away From Womens' Health
Even though Obamacare hasn't been passed yet, I can't help but think that the administration and other liberal democrats had something to do with the recent information about women's' health screening. Why would it now be okay to say women that have been told forever and a day to have yearly pap-smears from their teens and early twenties to now say they can wait for every-other year? And why is it now okay for older women to wait another decade before they start having regular mammograms? Seems to me that we are already seeing the ground work being laid for denial of treatments.
Thank goodness that my wife was able to have a mammogram this past week and find out that she is okay. Thanks again that she was able to have her elective surgery to alleviate other discomforts that she would most assuredly been denied if socialized medicine was in full swing.
A part of me should be thankful that the democrats in congress seem hellbent on ramming through their socialist agenda including their holy grail of socialized health. I say I should be thankful because I think that once the nation realizes that the democrats have made the biggest power grab in our nation's history and placed 48% of the economy under government control (between the stimulus packages and universal health scare)--yes, I realize that the republicans were responsible for the first few stimulus deals--once the country realizes that they are being made subjects and not citizens then they will want to vote out the party in power. The reason I can't be too happy is that once the government gets its hands on something it is damn near impossible to get it to let go. I think that is what the democrats have in mind.
I think they realize that they run a good chance of being voted against in 2010 and 2012, but they are willing to take the risk. They believe and rightly so that once they turn our health system into a socialist system then everything thing else will follow suit. The country will then be center-left at best. Once the government runs health care then it can justify running everything else since it can then tie everything back to health--either physical or mental. I remember being in Australia, where they have socialized health care. It was illegal to ride down the road with your arm out of the window. Why? Simple--who would pay if you wrecked and lost an arm? The government. So Australians lost the right to cool themselves down on a hot summer day while riding in the car by letting their arm dangle out the window in the breeze. Silly yes, but true.
One by one your freedoms will be lost due to the expediency of health care. The freedom loving democrats will tell you what to eat--they already want to put a 'sin tax' on regular sodas. They will tell you how to drive down the road--seat belts clicked and arms inside the windows at all times. I wonder if they will ask homosexuals to stop committing sodomy since it has been linked with the large medical price tag of HIV/AIDS? Probably not right away, but give it time you folks from the North America Man Boy Love Association. I wonder if they will start declining abortions if they become too pricey? Probably not right away, but give it time you Pro-choicers. On second thought, they will probably run specials on abortions since it's cheaper to kill the child than provide a lifetime of "free" medical care.
Yes, it looks like the party of individual choice--at least for social issues--is about to give us socialized medicine and then take away all those freedoms they argue so much for. And why will they take them away? Because their government health system will have to keep costs down and be financially responsible--it will have to abide by conservative economic principles. I realize of course that the system will not be responsible but once China and our other creditors finally stop lending us money the system will have to cut back drastically on services. If it only cut back on the liberal loons that thought up this idiotic health care scheme it would be one thing; however, those of us who hate the idea of government controlled health care will have to suffer as well. Thanks a lot all of you who voted for Obama and any other democrat or republican who favors taking away my freedoms. The constitution guaranteed them for over two hundred years and you were successful at destroying them in less than a year.
Thank goodness that my wife was able to have a mammogram this past week and find out that she is okay. Thanks again that she was able to have her elective surgery to alleviate other discomforts that she would most assuredly been denied if socialized medicine was in full swing.
A part of me should be thankful that the democrats in congress seem hellbent on ramming through their socialist agenda including their holy grail of socialized health. I say I should be thankful because I think that once the nation realizes that the democrats have made the biggest power grab in our nation's history and placed 48% of the economy under government control (between the stimulus packages and universal health scare)--yes, I realize that the republicans were responsible for the first few stimulus deals--once the country realizes that they are being made subjects and not citizens then they will want to vote out the party in power. The reason I can't be too happy is that once the government gets its hands on something it is damn near impossible to get it to let go. I think that is what the democrats have in mind.
I think they realize that they run a good chance of being voted against in 2010 and 2012, but they are willing to take the risk. They believe and rightly so that once they turn our health system into a socialist system then everything thing else will follow suit. The country will then be center-left at best. Once the government runs health care then it can justify running everything else since it can then tie everything back to health--either physical or mental. I remember being in Australia, where they have socialized health care. It was illegal to ride down the road with your arm out of the window. Why? Simple--who would pay if you wrecked and lost an arm? The government. So Australians lost the right to cool themselves down on a hot summer day while riding in the car by letting their arm dangle out the window in the breeze. Silly yes, but true.
One by one your freedoms will be lost due to the expediency of health care. The freedom loving democrats will tell you what to eat--they already want to put a 'sin tax' on regular sodas. They will tell you how to drive down the road--seat belts clicked and arms inside the windows at all times. I wonder if they will ask homosexuals to stop committing sodomy since it has been linked with the large medical price tag of HIV/AIDS? Probably not right away, but give it time you folks from the North America Man Boy Love Association. I wonder if they will start declining abortions if they become too pricey? Probably not right away, but give it time you Pro-choicers. On second thought, they will probably run specials on abortions since it's cheaper to kill the child than provide a lifetime of "free" medical care.
Yes, it looks like the party of individual choice--at least for social issues--is about to give us socialized medicine and then take away all those freedoms they argue so much for. And why will they take them away? Because their government health system will have to keep costs down and be financially responsible--it will have to abide by conservative economic principles. I realize of course that the system will not be responsible but once China and our other creditors finally stop lending us money the system will have to cut back drastically on services. If it only cut back on the liberal loons that thought up this idiotic health care scheme it would be one thing; however, those of us who hate the idea of government controlled health care will have to suffer as well. Thanks a lot all of you who voted for Obama and any other democrat or republican who favors taking away my freedoms. The constitution guaranteed them for over two hundred years and you were successful at destroying them in less than a year.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
I Agree With President Obama: Kanye West is a Jack-Ass
Like I told my daughter, Caison, on election night--I'll help the president when he does something right. I echo his "off record" comment--Kanye West is a Jack-Ass. His disrepecting of Taylor Swift during her acceptance speech at the VMAs was nothing short of rude and may even be racist. But we shouldn't be surprised that someone the caliber of West would pull such a stunt. It would be interesting though to see how he would have reacted if Toby Keith would have done the same thing to him or another black entertainer. Even better, I would love to see him try to take the microphone from Toby--I wonder if Toby would have "put a boot in his [jack]-ass" since, like one of Toby's songs says, "it's the American way."
Just as much as Kanye showed he was a Jack-Ass, Beyonce showed she had class. She offered Taylor the remainder of her own acceptance time later in the show. Both of these young ladies show how celebrities should behave. Mr. West just showed his jack-ass.
Just as much as Kanye showed he was a Jack-Ass, Beyonce showed she had class. She offered Taylor the remainder of her own acceptance time later in the show. Both of these young ladies show how celebrities should behave. Mr. West just showed his jack-ass.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Something's Fishy
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
The above paragraph was issued on the Whitehouse blog. The executive branch of our federal government is now asking us to report fellow Americans who disagree with a healthcare proposal. Health care! Not a terrorist plot, but health care!! Kids if your mommy or daddy disagree with the president on healthcare--REPORT THEM!!! If your grandparents are worried that government run health care will deny them services they need--LET BIG BROTHER KNOW!!! We're talking about HEALTH CARE!!! Please Mr. President, release terrorists from Guantanamo, but don't let senior citizens disagree with you on health care!!! Give me a break.
Can all you folks who voted for Obama and still support him please say a few words--Gestapo and KGB.
The above paragraph was issued on the Whitehouse blog. The executive branch of our federal government is now asking us to report fellow Americans who disagree with a healthcare proposal. Health care! Not a terrorist plot, but health care!! Kids if your mommy or daddy disagree with the president on healthcare--REPORT THEM!!! If your grandparents are worried that government run health care will deny them services they need--LET BIG BROTHER KNOW!!! We're talking about HEALTH CARE!!! Please Mr. President, release terrorists from Guantanamo, but don't let senior citizens disagree with you on health care!!! Give me a break.
Can all you folks who voted for Obama and still support him please say a few words--Gestapo and KGB.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Paul Krugman Conducts a Bad Poll For Liberals but a Good Poll for Reality
NYT's Krugman Conducts Informal Canadian Health Care Poll; Result: 'Bad Move On My Part'
July 28, 2009 - 11:39 ET The New York Times' Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and staunch champion of government medicine a la the Canadian model of our neighbors to the north.
Just this past Saturday in "Toyota, Moving Northward" he flogged the advantages of the single-payer system Canada offers. He postulated that one reason why the Japanese auto maker is locating its new RAV4 plant in Ontario is their government medicine:
Canada's other big selling point is its national health insurance system, which saves auto manufacturers large sums in benefit payments compared with their costs in the United States.
Suddenly Krugman the Leftist is all for huge government subsidies for big business.
Krugman's Nobel-prize winning economic mind then offers up:
So what's the impact on taxpayers? In Canada, there's no impact at all: since all Canadians get government-provided health insurance in any case, the additional auto jobs won't increase government spending.
Really? Adding workers brought in from outside Canada to the government rolls won't increase government spending? A little of Krugman's new math: X plus 5,000 still somehow equals X.
On January 9th, 2008 Krugman defended Canadian (as well as French and British) government medicine from an assessment of it by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in "A health care system to die for."
Rudy Giuliani warned us about what would happen if a Democrat wins:
You have got to see the trap. Otherwise we are in for a disaster. We are in for Canadian health care, French health care, British healthcare.
And that would be a terrible thing:
In "Measuring the Health of Nations: Updating an Earlier Analysis" (Health Affairs, Jan./Feb. 2008), Ellen Nolte, Ph.D., and C. Martin McKee, M.D., D.Sc., both of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, compared international rates of "amenable mortality"-that is, deaths from certain causes before age 75 that are potentially preventable with timely and effective health care.
The key words being "timely" and "effective" - two words never associated with government medicine.
Just ask Shona Holmes, a Canadian government medicine escapee alive today only because she had an American free market health care system in which to take refuge. The system Krugman wants to see shut down. The four and six month waits for initial diagnoses of her condition to which Canadian (be) patient care had consigned her would have killed her.
And Ms. Holmes' life-and-death waiting game at the hands of government medicine is the rule rather than the exception. Most Canadians and Europeans - subject to the system - aren't as fond of it as is Krugman, who isn't.
Something Dr. Krugman could, should he be at all interested, find out with a little due diligence and some rudimentary research.
Of which he got a taste here with his informal poll. Oops.
—Seton Motley is Director of Communications for the Media Research Center.
Below is a link to Krugman's embarassing impromptu poll. In his defense, at least he admits that he screwed up this time. He might try the same with some of his other opinions ie. Climate Change is a bigger threat than bankrupt entitlement programs.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=GduznzqGaG
July 28, 2009 - 11:39 ET The New York Times' Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and staunch champion of government medicine a la the Canadian model of our neighbors to the north.
Just this past Saturday in "Toyota, Moving Northward" he flogged the advantages of the single-payer system Canada offers. He postulated that one reason why the Japanese auto maker is locating its new RAV4 plant in Ontario is their government medicine:
Canada's other big selling point is its national health insurance system, which saves auto manufacturers large sums in benefit payments compared with their costs in the United States.
Suddenly Krugman the Leftist is all for huge government subsidies for big business.
Krugman's Nobel-prize winning economic mind then offers up:
So what's the impact on taxpayers? In Canada, there's no impact at all: since all Canadians get government-provided health insurance in any case, the additional auto jobs won't increase government spending.
Really? Adding workers brought in from outside Canada to the government rolls won't increase government spending? A little of Krugman's new math: X plus 5,000 still somehow equals X.
On January 9th, 2008 Krugman defended Canadian (as well as French and British) government medicine from an assessment of it by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in "A health care system to die for."
Rudy Giuliani warned us about what would happen if a Democrat wins:
You have got to see the trap. Otherwise we are in for a disaster. We are in for Canadian health care, French health care, British healthcare.
And that would be a terrible thing:
In "Measuring the Health of Nations: Updating an Earlier Analysis" (Health Affairs, Jan./Feb. 2008), Ellen Nolte, Ph.D., and C. Martin McKee, M.D., D.Sc., both of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, compared international rates of "amenable mortality"-that is, deaths from certain causes before age 75 that are potentially preventable with timely and effective health care.
The key words being "timely" and "effective" - two words never associated with government medicine.
Just ask Shona Holmes, a Canadian government medicine escapee alive today only because she had an American free market health care system in which to take refuge. The system Krugman wants to see shut down. The four and six month waits for initial diagnoses of her condition to which Canadian (be) patient care had consigned her would have killed her.
And Ms. Holmes' life-and-death waiting game at the hands of government medicine is the rule rather than the exception. Most Canadians and Europeans - subject to the system - aren't as fond of it as is Krugman, who isn't.
Something Dr. Krugman could, should he be at all interested, find out with a little due diligence and some rudimentary research.
Of which he got a taste here with his informal poll. Oops.
—Seton Motley is Director of Communications for the Media Research Center.
Below is a link to Krugman's embarassing impromptu poll. In his defense, at least he admits that he screwed up this time. He might try the same with some of his other opinions ie. Climate Change is a bigger threat than bankrupt entitlement programs.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=GduznzqGaG
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
One of my Political and Spiritual Heroes
Ezra Taft Benson, 13th President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and former Secretary of Agriculture in the Eisenhower Administration, was both a prophet and a patriot. During the course of his life he served faithfully as a watchman on the tower warning of potential political and spiritual perils that threatened the United States of America. While most of his political speeches were given during the fifties and sixties, their messages are still very pertinent to America today. The following quote is a great warning about the present "Bailout" mania that seems to be putting the federal government on the road to owning large national companies, ie. GM, Chrysler, and AIG.
"I am unalterably opposed to socialism, either in whole or in part, and regard it as an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a denial of the right of private property for government to own or operate the means of producing and distributing goods and services in competition with private enterprise, or to regiment owners in the legitimate use of private property." From the speech--The Proper Role of Government
"I am unalterably opposed to socialism, either in whole or in part, and regard it as an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a denial of the right of private property for government to own or operate the means of producing and distributing goods and services in competition with private enterprise, or to regiment owners in the legitimate use of private property." From the speech--The Proper Role of Government
Monday, April 6, 2009
Democratic Representative Insults Father of Dead Virginia Girl
U.S. Representative Luis Gutierrez, democrat from Illinois's 4th congressional district and apologist for illegal immigrantion, offered an offensive and idiotic remark during a congressional hearing in which the father of a girl killed by a drunk driving illegal immigrant was testifying about his daughter's senseless death. The father pointed out that the illegal had been arrested multiple times and never deported. Instead he was allowed to stay illegally in our country and have the opportunity to drink, drive, and destroy the lives of two young women. In some of the father's comments he referred to the illegals as banditos.
Representative Gutierrez offered the following remark to the father:
“What I have seen, unfortunately, is the will to target and to victimize and to scapegoat a community of people,” Gutierrez said. “I have seen that readily here. It makes for great political points but it doesn’t solve the problem and would not have saved your daughter’s life."
How idiotic can this congressman be?! If the laws had been enforced and the perpetrator had been deported as he could and should have been before the day that he once again became drunk and then slammed into the two American girls who were lawfully waiting for a red light to change, he would have never been here to kill the two young ladies. Instead the congressman turns the drunk driver and other illegals into the victims. The next victims of illegal immigrant crime may be some of Rep. Gutierrez's family. I wonder if he will have the same viewpoint then?
Representative Gutierrez offered the following remark to the father:
“What I have seen, unfortunately, is the will to target and to victimize and to scapegoat a community of people,” Gutierrez said. “I have seen that readily here. It makes for great political points but it doesn’t solve the problem and would not have saved your daughter’s life."
How idiotic can this congressman be?! If the laws had been enforced and the perpetrator had been deported as he could and should have been before the day that he once again became drunk and then slammed into the two American girls who were lawfully waiting for a red light to change, he would have never been here to kill the two young ladies. Instead the congressman turns the drunk driver and other illegals into the victims. The next victims of illegal immigrant crime may be some of Rep. Gutierrez's family. I wonder if he will have the same viewpoint then?
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Obama--Fabian Socialist
Prior to the election I commented on another blogsite that Obama was a socialist. I was rebuked that I didn't know anything about economic systems. True--I wasn't an Economics major. True--I didn't graduate with honors. That being said, I am a reader and a thinker. Evidently according to the following article I was also on the right track with my description of Obama. I just read this article and was pleased to see that my view was correct.
Barack Obama, Fabian Socialist
Jerry Bowyer, 11.03.08, 12:32 AM EST
Barack Obama is a Fabian socialist. I should know; I was raised by one. My Grandfather worked as a union machinist for Ingersoll Rand (nyse: IR - news - people ) during the day. In the evenings he tended bar and read books. After his funeral, I went back home and started working my way through his library, starting with T.W. Arnold's The Folklore of Capitalism. This was my introduction to the Fabian socialists.
Fabians believed in gradual nationalization of the economy through manipulation of the democratic process. Breaking away from the violent revolutionary socialists of their day, they thought that the only real way to effect "fundamental change" and "social justice" was through a mass movement of the working classes presided over by intellectual and cultural elites. Before TV it was stage plays, written by George Bernard Shaw and thousands of inferior "realist" playwrights dedicated to social change. John Cusack's character in Woody Allen's "Bullets Over Broadway" captures the movement rather well.
Arnold taught me to question everyone--my president, my priest and my parents. Well, almost everyone. I wasn't supposed to question the Fabian intellectuals themselves. That's the Fabian MO, relentless cultural and journalistic attacks on everything that is, and then a hard pitch for the hope of what might be.
That's Obama's world.
He's telling the truth when he says that he doesn't agree with Bill Ayers' violent bombing tactics, but it's a tactical disagreement. Why use dynamite when mass media and community organizing work so much better? Who needs Molotov when you've got Saul Alinski?
So here is the playbook: The left will identify, freeze, personalize and polarize an industry, probably health care. It will attempt to nationalize one-fifth of the U.S. economy through legislative action. They will focus, as Lenin did, on the "commanding heights" of the economy, not the little guy.
As Obama said, "the smallest" businesses will be exempt from fines for not "doing the right thing" in offering employer-based health care coverage. Health will not be nationalized in one fell swoop; they have been studying the failures of Hillary Care. Instead, a parallel system will be created, funded by surcharges on business payroll, which will be superior to many private plans.
The old system will be forced to subsidize the new system and there will be a gradual shift from the former to the latter. The only coercion will be the fines, not the participation. A middle-class entitlement will have been created...
Will Obama's be the strong-man socialism of a Chavez, or the soft socialism that Clement Atlee used to defeat Churchill after WWII? I don't know, but I suspect something kind of in between. Despite right-wing predictions that we won't see Rush shut down by Fairness Doctrine fascists. We won't see Baptist ministers hauled off in handcuffs for anti-sodomy sermons. It will more likely be a matter of paperwork. Strong worded letters from powerful lawyers in and out of government to program directors and general mangers of radio stations. Ominous references to license renewal.
The psychic propaganda assault will be powerful. The cyber-brown-shirts will spew hate, the union guys will flood talk shows with switchboard-collapsing swarms of complaint calls aimed at those hosts who "go beyond the pale" in their criticisms of Obama. In concert with pop culture outlets like The Daily Show and SNL, Obama will use his podium to humiliate and demonize those of us who don't want to come together and heal the planet.
You've heard of the bully pulpit, right? Well, then get ready, because you're about to see the bully part.
Jerry Bowyer is chief economist of Benchmark Financial Network and a CNBC contributor.
Barack Obama, Fabian Socialist
Jerry Bowyer, 11.03.08, 12:32 AM EST
Barack Obama is a Fabian socialist. I should know; I was raised by one. My Grandfather worked as a union machinist for Ingersoll Rand (nyse: IR - news - people ) during the day. In the evenings he tended bar and read books. After his funeral, I went back home and started working my way through his library, starting with T.W. Arnold's The Folklore of Capitalism. This was my introduction to the Fabian socialists.
Fabians believed in gradual nationalization of the economy through manipulation of the democratic process. Breaking away from the violent revolutionary socialists of their day, they thought that the only real way to effect "fundamental change" and "social justice" was through a mass movement of the working classes presided over by intellectual and cultural elites. Before TV it was stage plays, written by George Bernard Shaw and thousands of inferior "realist" playwrights dedicated to social change. John Cusack's character in Woody Allen's "Bullets Over Broadway" captures the movement rather well.
Arnold taught me to question everyone--my president, my priest and my parents. Well, almost everyone. I wasn't supposed to question the Fabian intellectuals themselves. That's the Fabian MO, relentless cultural and journalistic attacks on everything that is, and then a hard pitch for the hope of what might be.
That's Obama's world.
He's telling the truth when he says that he doesn't agree with Bill Ayers' violent bombing tactics, but it's a tactical disagreement. Why use dynamite when mass media and community organizing work so much better? Who needs Molotov when you've got Saul Alinski?
So here is the playbook: The left will identify, freeze, personalize and polarize an industry, probably health care. It will attempt to nationalize one-fifth of the U.S. economy through legislative action. They will focus, as Lenin did, on the "commanding heights" of the economy, not the little guy.
As Obama said, "the smallest" businesses will be exempt from fines for not "doing the right thing" in offering employer-based health care coverage. Health will not be nationalized in one fell swoop; they have been studying the failures of Hillary Care. Instead, a parallel system will be created, funded by surcharges on business payroll, which will be superior to many private plans.
The old system will be forced to subsidize the new system and there will be a gradual shift from the former to the latter. The only coercion will be the fines, not the participation. A middle-class entitlement will have been created...
Will Obama's be the strong-man socialism of a Chavez, or the soft socialism that Clement Atlee used to defeat Churchill after WWII? I don't know, but I suspect something kind of in between. Despite right-wing predictions that we won't see Rush shut down by Fairness Doctrine fascists. We won't see Baptist ministers hauled off in handcuffs for anti-sodomy sermons. It will more likely be a matter of paperwork. Strong worded letters from powerful lawyers in and out of government to program directors and general mangers of radio stations. Ominous references to license renewal.
The psychic propaganda assault will be powerful. The cyber-brown-shirts will spew hate, the union guys will flood talk shows with switchboard-collapsing swarms of complaint calls aimed at those hosts who "go beyond the pale" in their criticisms of Obama. In concert with pop culture outlets like The Daily Show and SNL, Obama will use his podium to humiliate and demonize those of us who don't want to come together and heal the planet.
You've heard of the bully pulpit, right? Well, then get ready, because you're about to see the bully part.
Jerry Bowyer is chief economist of Benchmark Financial Network and a CNBC contributor.
Obama: Once, Twice, Three, Four Times a Hypocrite, Idiot, Etc.
Some people told me how intellegent Obama was as to why I should vote for him. I wonder if they still feel the same way? The answer is probably yes. Many of his supporters view him more in a religious context than a political one. One told me that she believed that God had sent him to lead the country. God also sent the plagues on Egypt.
With questions now arising about Trade nominee, Ron Kirk, and his failure to pay $10,000.00 in taxes, Obama chalks up his fourth nominee with tax problems. Is he a hypocrite because he said his administration would be a model of ethics and integrity? Is he an idiot because he keeps making the same mistake? With his nomination of Tom Daschle he exclaimed "I screwed up." What is he going to say this time? Maybe it should be "I'll screw the American people."
With questions now arising about Trade nominee, Ron Kirk, and his failure to pay $10,000.00 in taxes, Obama chalks up his fourth nominee with tax problems. Is he a hypocrite because he said his administration would be a model of ethics and integrity? Is he an idiot because he keeps making the same mistake? With his nomination of Tom Daschle he exclaimed "I screwed up." What is he going to say this time? Maybe it should be "I'll screw the American people."
Saturday, February 28, 2009
True Blue Dogs
The following article focuses on the die hard blue dogs that stood up to Obama's and their leadership's spendulus plan. Notice that NC's own Heath Shuler is amoung the brave. Too bad he won't wait and challenge Kay Hagan in six years in the Democratic Primary.
Democrat Blue Dogs Fewer in Number, But Stronger in Bite
Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:21 PM
By: John Mercurio
Who are the real Blue Dogs?
The question irks leaders of the fiscally conservative coalition of House Democrats, which made solid gains in 2008 and now includes 49 members. Every one of them is sincerely committed to reducing the federal deficit, they say. Of the 49, however, only six of them voted against President Obama’s $789 billion economic stimulus package despite their stated, laser-like focus on balancing the budget.
Obama’s plan, by his own acknowledgment, will increase the deficit in the short term by roughly $200 billion. (Another five Blue Dogs who had opposed Obama’s original plan switched to “yes” votes on the final version).
Obama is working to court Blue Dogs. The president invited them to the White House on Feb. 10 and focused their hour-long meeting on curbing federal spending rather than boosting the deficit. “We feel like he is committed to fiscal responsibility,” Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), one of the Blue Dogs who switched to ultimately support the president’s plan, told reporters after the meeting.
Blue Dogs claim Obama’s recent promise to cut the deficit in half by 2012 is a result of their efforts. “This week alone, President Obama is doing more to address the serious long-term fiscal problems facing our country than former President Bush and his congressional allies did during his entire 8-year tenure in office,” said Blue Dog Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.).
Still, some Blue Dogs say their relations with House Democratic leaders frayed during the stimulus negotiations, mostly because many Blue Dog demands were ignored. “I got in terrible trouble with our leadership because they don't care what's in the bill; they just want it to pass and they want it to be unanimous,” Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), a Blue Dog with particularly tense ties to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, told a Nashville radio station in early February. “We're just told how to vote. We're treated like mushrooms most of the time.”
So, will the Blue Dogs cling to their traditional colors, or will they be swallowed up by red ink? The answer to that question could depend largely on how aggressively these six “real” Blue Dogs push back against their party’s leaders.
Here’s a look at the “real” Blue Dogs of Capitol Hill:
Bobby Bright (Ala.): Bright, a farmer and former mayor of Montgomery, Ala., voted against both versions of the bill, saying there was too much spending and not enough stimulus in the bill. He complained that his party’s congressional leaders “rushed” the bill through Congress “with little debate or opportunity to offer meaningful changes.” And as a result, he said, his constituents overwhelmingly oppose it. Bright said his constituents “have little faith” that the bill “will be worth its tremendous” price tag. “I share their concerns,” he added. John McCain carried Bright’s district by 27 points last November, roughly the same margin as George W. Bush scored in 2000 and 2004, according to vote totals compiled by Swing State Project.
Parker Griffith (Ala.): Griffith, a former state senator from northern Alabama, said his vote was a “difficult but very thoughtful decision.” He said he had been willing to support a bill that included tax cuts, job creation and infrastructure projects. “But as the package went through the legislative process, it soon became apparent that this would be a spending bill without the necessary provisions to jump start our economy,” he said. McCain carried Griffith’s district by 23 points, roughly the same as Bush’s performance in 2000 and 2004, according to Swing State Project.
Walter Minnick (Idaho): Minnick, a local businessman from western Idaho, voted against the plan because, he said, it can’t work until the country’s banking and financial industries are back on their feet. As an example, he cited funds in the plan devoted to infrastructure projects. Without access to loans from cash-strapped banks, he said, contractors can’t obtain lines of credit to buy equipment they need to begin work on projects. Minnick, who offered a scaled-down $200 billion stimulus as an alternative, said he didn’t mind being one of only 11 Democrats to vote against the plan. “My job is to represent Idaho and to do what's best for this country, and that's more important than party lines,” he told local reporters. McCain carried Minnick’s district by 22 points, but that marks a sharp decline for the GOP ticket over the past eight years. In 2000, Bush carried the district by 40 points.
Collin Peterson (Minn.): Peterson, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, said he could support spending for infrastructure improvements, but not for tax cuts that only add to the federal deficit. “I just could not get there – I could not borrow money to give people tax cuts," he told local supporters in Bemidji, Minn., a few days after the vote. “We have a $2.2 trillion backlog in infrastructure. If they had put that $800 billion into infrastructure, into unemployment insurance, gave people health care who lost their jobs, and into food stamps, I would have borrowed the money and done that.” McCain carried Peterson’s district by just 3 points. Bush carried the district by double digits in both 2000 and 2004.
Heath Shuler (N.C.): Shuler, a former Washington Redskins quarterback, who’s eying a possible challenge to Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) in 2010, criticized his party’s leaders for failing to work across the aisle on the stimulus bill. "In order for us to get the confidence of America, it has to be done in a bipartisan way," he told Salon. "We have to have everyone – Democrats and Republicans standing on the stage with the administration – saying, ‘We got something done that was efficient, stimulating and timely.'” (To this, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s spokesman had a ready response: “Let me get this straight - this is coming from a guy who threw more than twice as many interceptions than touchdowns?” quipped Reid spokesman Jim Manley). McCain won Shuler’s district by 5 points, a sharp decline for Republicans since 2000. At that time, Bush beat Gore there by 18 points.
Gene Taylor (Miss.): Taylor, dean of the Blue Dog caucus and arguably the most conservative member of the House Democratic caucus, said he simply couldn’t support a stimulus bill that spiked the deficit. “We will have to borrow every penny of the $789 billion,” he fumed after the House vote. “Our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay it all back with interest.” As Taylor noted, “$789 billion is an enormous amount – As much debt as the nation borrowed in our first 203 years, from the revolutionary war to the beginning of Jimmy Carter’s Presidency in 1978.” McCain trounced Obama in Taylor’s district, winning by 36 points. That margin is roughly unchanged from the past two presidential elections
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Democrat Blue Dogs Fewer in Number, But Stronger in Bite
Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:21 PM
By: John Mercurio
Who are the real Blue Dogs?
The question irks leaders of the fiscally conservative coalition of House Democrats, which made solid gains in 2008 and now includes 49 members. Every one of them is sincerely committed to reducing the federal deficit, they say. Of the 49, however, only six of them voted against President Obama’s $789 billion economic stimulus package despite their stated, laser-like focus on balancing the budget.
Obama’s plan, by his own acknowledgment, will increase the deficit in the short term by roughly $200 billion. (Another five Blue Dogs who had opposed Obama’s original plan switched to “yes” votes on the final version).
Obama is working to court Blue Dogs. The president invited them to the White House on Feb. 10 and focused their hour-long meeting on curbing federal spending rather than boosting the deficit. “We feel like he is committed to fiscal responsibility,” Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), one of the Blue Dogs who switched to ultimately support the president’s plan, told reporters after the meeting.
Blue Dogs claim Obama’s recent promise to cut the deficit in half by 2012 is a result of their efforts. “This week alone, President Obama is doing more to address the serious long-term fiscal problems facing our country than former President Bush and his congressional allies did during his entire 8-year tenure in office,” said Blue Dog Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.).
Still, some Blue Dogs say their relations with House Democratic leaders frayed during the stimulus negotiations, mostly because many Blue Dog demands were ignored. “I got in terrible trouble with our leadership because they don't care what's in the bill; they just want it to pass and they want it to be unanimous,” Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), a Blue Dog with particularly tense ties to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, told a Nashville radio station in early February. “We're just told how to vote. We're treated like mushrooms most of the time.”
So, will the Blue Dogs cling to their traditional colors, or will they be swallowed up by red ink? The answer to that question could depend largely on how aggressively these six “real” Blue Dogs push back against their party’s leaders.
Here’s a look at the “real” Blue Dogs of Capitol Hill:
Bobby Bright (Ala.): Bright, a farmer and former mayor of Montgomery, Ala., voted against both versions of the bill, saying there was too much spending and not enough stimulus in the bill. He complained that his party’s congressional leaders “rushed” the bill through Congress “with little debate or opportunity to offer meaningful changes.” And as a result, he said, his constituents overwhelmingly oppose it. Bright said his constituents “have little faith” that the bill “will be worth its tremendous” price tag. “I share their concerns,” he added. John McCain carried Bright’s district by 27 points last November, roughly the same margin as George W. Bush scored in 2000 and 2004, according to vote totals compiled by Swing State Project.
Parker Griffith (Ala.): Griffith, a former state senator from northern Alabama, said his vote was a “difficult but very thoughtful decision.” He said he had been willing to support a bill that included tax cuts, job creation and infrastructure projects. “But as the package went through the legislative process, it soon became apparent that this would be a spending bill without the necessary provisions to jump start our economy,” he said. McCain carried Griffith’s district by 23 points, roughly the same as Bush’s performance in 2000 and 2004, according to Swing State Project.
Walter Minnick (Idaho): Minnick, a local businessman from western Idaho, voted against the plan because, he said, it can’t work until the country’s banking and financial industries are back on their feet. As an example, he cited funds in the plan devoted to infrastructure projects. Without access to loans from cash-strapped banks, he said, contractors can’t obtain lines of credit to buy equipment they need to begin work on projects. Minnick, who offered a scaled-down $200 billion stimulus as an alternative, said he didn’t mind being one of only 11 Democrats to vote against the plan. “My job is to represent Idaho and to do what's best for this country, and that's more important than party lines,” he told local reporters. McCain carried Minnick’s district by 22 points, but that marks a sharp decline for the GOP ticket over the past eight years. In 2000, Bush carried the district by 40 points.
Collin Peterson (Minn.): Peterson, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, said he could support spending for infrastructure improvements, but not for tax cuts that only add to the federal deficit. “I just could not get there – I could not borrow money to give people tax cuts," he told local supporters in Bemidji, Minn., a few days after the vote. “We have a $2.2 trillion backlog in infrastructure. If they had put that $800 billion into infrastructure, into unemployment insurance, gave people health care who lost their jobs, and into food stamps, I would have borrowed the money and done that.” McCain carried Peterson’s district by just 3 points. Bush carried the district by double digits in both 2000 and 2004.
Heath Shuler (N.C.): Shuler, a former Washington Redskins quarterback, who’s eying a possible challenge to Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) in 2010, criticized his party’s leaders for failing to work across the aisle on the stimulus bill. "In order for us to get the confidence of America, it has to be done in a bipartisan way," he told Salon. "We have to have everyone – Democrats and Republicans standing on the stage with the administration – saying, ‘We got something done that was efficient, stimulating and timely.'” (To this, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s spokesman had a ready response: “Let me get this straight - this is coming from a guy who threw more than twice as many interceptions than touchdowns?” quipped Reid spokesman Jim Manley). McCain won Shuler’s district by 5 points, a sharp decline for Republicans since 2000. At that time, Bush beat Gore there by 18 points.
Gene Taylor (Miss.): Taylor, dean of the Blue Dog caucus and arguably the most conservative member of the House Democratic caucus, said he simply couldn’t support a stimulus bill that spiked the deficit. “We will have to borrow every penny of the $789 billion,” he fumed after the House vote. “Our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay it all back with interest.” As Taylor noted, “$789 billion is an enormous amount – As much debt as the nation borrowed in our first 203 years, from the revolutionary war to the beginning of Jimmy Carter’s Presidency in 1978.” McCain trounced Obama in Taylor’s district, winning by 36 points. That margin is roughly unchanged from the past two presidential elections
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Message on Marriage to President Obama
The following message to Pres. Obama is a little long but very worthwhile to read and even more worthwhile to implement. As an educator I have seen first hand the disparity between students coming from broken homes and those coming from homes where both biological parents are still together making their marriages work. The increases in illigetimacy rates are alarming. I believe educators can have tremendous affect on students. That being said, their first teachers should be their biological parents and their classroom should be a home where marriage is honored. A stable home life will have far better results than anything any teacher could say or do.
Reducing Poverty by Revitalizing Marriage in Low-Income Communities: A Memo to President-elect Obama
by Robert E. Rector
Special Report #45
[C]hildren living with single mothers are five times more likely to be poor than children in two-parent households. Children in single-parent homes are also more likely to drop out of school and become teen parents, even when income is factored out. And the evidence suggests that on average, children who live with their biological mother and father do better than those who live in stepfamilies or with cohabiting partners.... In light of these facts, policies that strengthen marriage for those who choose it and that discourage unintended births outside of marriage are sensible goals to pursue.
--Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope[1]
President-elect Obama, the collapse of marriage is the most important social problem facing the nation. When the War on Poverty began in the 1960s, 7 percent of U.S. children were born outside of marriage. Today, the number is 38 percent. Among blacks, it is 69 percent. You are in a unique position to reverse this alarming trend.
The decline of marriage is a major cause of child poverty. Roughly two-thirds of poor children live in single-parent homes. Marital collapse is also a major contributor to welfare dependence: Each year, government spends over $250 billion for means-tested welfare benefits for single parents.
When compared to similar children raised by two married biological parents, children raised in single-parent homes are more likely to fail in school, abuse drugs or alcohol, commit crimes, become pregnant as teens, and suffer from emotional and behavioral problems. Such children are also more likely to end up on welfare or in jails when they become adults.
Revitalized marriage can have a powerful impact in reducing poverty in low-income communities. For example, if poor women who have children out of wedlock were married to the actual fathers of their children, nearly two-thirds would be lifted out of poverty immediately.[2] Because the decline in marriage is linked to many other social problems, an increase in healthy marriage would to lead to a long-term drop in those problems as well.
Given these facts, policies that strengthen marriage for those who are interested and discourage births outside of marriage are indeed sensible. But the first step in developing such policies must be to look beyond the many misperceptions that cloud the issue. Effective policy must be based on facts.
Fact: Out-of-wedlock childbearing is not the same problem as teen pregnancy. Although 38 percent of children are born outside of marriage, only about one in seven of these non-marital births occurs to a girl under age 18. Most out-of-wedlock births occur to men and women in their early twenties. Half of the women who have children out of wedlock are cohabiting with the father at the time of birth; 75 percent are in a romantic relationship with the father.[3] Policymakers seeking to reduce out-of-wedlock births must look far beyond teen pregnancy.
Fact: Few out-of-wedlock births are accidental. The overwhelming majority of young adult women who have a non-marital birth strongly want to have children. Although they are ambivalent about the best timing, they want and expect to have children at a fairly young age. Most are also interested in marriage, but they do not see marriage or a stable relationship as an important precondition to having a baby. To a significant degree, the decision to have a child outside of marriage is a deliberate choice for these women.
Fact: Lack of access to birth control is not a significant factor contributing to "unintended pregnancy" or non-marital births. A recent survey of low-income women who had had a non-marital pregnancy found that only 1 percent reported that lack of access to birth control played a role in the pregnancy.[4]
Fact: Out-of-wedlock childbearing is concentrated among low-income, less educated men and women. In general, the women most likely to have a child without being married are those who have the least ability to support a family by themselves.
Fact: Although the decline in marriage is most prominent among blacks, it is also a serious problem among Hispanics and lower-income whites: 44 percent of Hispanic children and 25 percent of white children are born outside of marriage.
Fact: Low male wages and employment are not the principal cause of out-of-wedlock childbearing. The overwhelming majority of non-married fathers were employed at the time of the child's birth. Over half earn enough to support a family above the poverty level without the mother working at all.[5] Before the child's birth, the fathers-to-be, on average, earned more than the mothers-to-be. If, as some argue, the fathers were not economically prepared to support a family, the mothers were even less prepared. Other factors such as social norms concerning marriage, life-planning skills, and relationship skills play a far greater role than male wages in promoting out-of-wedlock childbearing.
Fact: Out-of-wedlock childbearing is not the result of a shortage of marriageable males. Nearly 40 percent of all American children, and 69 percent of black children, are born outside of marriage. The sheer magnitude of the problem undercuts the argument that it is caused by a shortage of marriageable men. The decline in marriage in low-income communities stems from changing social norms and from a welfare system that for decades has penalized marriage, not from a lack of millions of marriageable men.
Government should help low-income couples to move toward more prosperous lives by providing such men and women with education that increases their understanding of the strong link between marriage and better life outcomes and that equips them to make critical life decisions concerning childbearing and family formation more wisely.
Paradoxically, most low-income men and women who are likely to have children out of wedlock have favorable attitudes toward marriage: If anything, they tend to over-idealize it. However, many low-income couples do not believe that it is important to form a stable marital relationship before conceiving children and bringing them into the world. They also tend to believe that haphazard cohabiting relationships are likely to endure and flourish when, in reality, this seldom occurs.
Many low-income individuals choose to have children first and then work on finding suitable partners and building strong relationships. They fail to understand that this pattern is not likely to be successful. Most low-income young women, in particular, strongly want children and hope those children will grow up to enter the middle class, but they fail to appreciate the vitally important role a healthy marriage can play in boosting a child's success.
In The Audacity of Hope, you wrote:
[R]esearch shows that marriage education workshops can make a real difference in helping married couples stay together and in encouraging unmarried couples who are living together to form a more lasting bond. Expanding access to such services to low-income couples, perhaps in concert with job training and placement, medical coverage, and other services already available, should be something everybody can agree on.[6]
You were exactly right. By and large, young low-income men and women aspire to have strong, healthy marriages. They also seek upward social and economic mobility. Marriage education can help at-risk individuals appreciate the role that healthy marriage can have in meeting long-term life goals and can enable them to make decisions about childbearing that best match their life aspirations. These programs can also provide training in life partner selection and in skills that help to build healthy enduring relationships. Such programs should not be regarded as imposing alien middle-class values on the poor, but rather as providing vital tools to help individuals fulfill their real life goals.
You have also written, "most people agree that neither federal welfare programs nor the tax code should penalize married couples."[7] Again, you are right. Given the private and social benefits of marriage, it is absurd for the welfare industry to penalize marriage. Yet that is exactly what welfare does.
Specifically, welfare programs create disincentives to marriage because benefits are reduced as a family's income rises. A mother will receive far more from welfare if she is single than if she has an employed husband in the home. For many low-income couples, marriage means a reduction in government assistance and an overall decline in the couple's joint income. Marriage penalties occur in many means-tested programs such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. The welfare system should be overhauled to reduce such counterproductive incentives.
Now is the time for action. You and your Administration, by launching the following specific initiatives, can help to revitalize marriage in America.
Recognize that the key to arresting the decline of marriage in the U.S. is moral leadership. Use the White House bully pulpit to reaffirm the value and importance of marriage. You are uniquely suited to this task. Your strong personal affirmation of values will prove critical in transforming anti-marriage norms and in promoting a long-overdue renewal of marriage in low-income communities.
Use the bully pulpit to emphasize the historical importance of marriage within the black community. Remind the nation that even at the height of Jim Crow segregation prior to World War II, nine out of ten black children were born to married couples. Warn the nation that the same decline in marriage that afflicted black communities a generation ago is now battering low- and moderate-income white communities.
Encourage public advertising campaigns on the importance of marriage that are targeted to low-income communities.
Provide marriage education programs in high schools with a high proportion of at-risk youth. Most low-income girls strongly desire to have children. They also wish and intend to be good mothers. These young women will be very receptive to information that shows the positive effects of marriage on long-term child outcomes. Such education could be funded under the current "healthy marriage initiative" program at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Make voluntary marriage education widely available to interested couples in low-income communities. This could be done by expanding the small "healthy marriage initiative" currently operating in HHS. These programs may also provide job training to participants, but that should not be their primary emphasis.
Provide marriage education referrals in Title X birth control clinics. Government- funded Title X clinics operate in nearly every county in the U.S., providing free or subsidized birth control to over 4 million low-income adult women each year. Many clients of these clinics go on to have children out of wedlock within a short period. With 38 percent of children born outside of marriage, it is obvious that a policy of merely promoting birth control is highly ineffective in stemming the rise of non-marital births. In addition to providing birth control, Title X clinics should be required to offer referrals to education in relationships, marriage, and life-planning skills to clients who are interested.
Reduce the anti-marriage penalties in welfare. The simplest way to accomplish this would be to increase the value of the earned income tax credit (EITC) for married couples with children; this could offset the anti-marriage penalties existing in other programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid.
Conclusion
More than 40 years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then a member of the White House staff under President Lyndon Johnson, warned of the impending collapse of the black married family. He predicted the social calamities that this collapse would bring. Moynihan was right, but in subsequent decades, as the problem mushroomed, the nation largely hid its head in the sand and ignored the devastation. In the four decades since Moynihan's warning, the government has done almost nothing to protect or restore marriage.
Today, the collapse of marriage about which Moynihan warned so long ago is escalating rapidly across other racial groups. Forty years of neglect and silence is enough. You now have a unique opportunity and ability to halt this destructive trend and to take the first decisive steps to restore marriage in our society.
Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in the Domestic Policy Studies Department at The Heritage Foundation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (New York: Crown Publishers, 2006), p. 334.
[2] Robert E. Rector, Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., Patrick F. Fagan, and Lauren R. Noyes, "Increasing Marriage Will Dramatically Reduce Child Poverty," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA03-06, May 20, 2003.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Kathryn Edin, Paula England, Emily Fitzgibbon Shafer, and Joanna Reed, "Forming Fragile Families: Was the Baby Planned, Unplanned, or In Between?" in Paula England and Kathryn Edin, eds., Unmarried Couples with Children (New York: Russell Sage Publications, 2007), p. 32.
[5] Rector et al., "Increasing Marriage Will Dramatically Reduce Child Poverty."
[6] Obama, The Audacity of Hope, p. 334.
[7] Ibid.
Reducing Poverty by Revitalizing Marriage in Low-Income Communities: A Memo to President-elect Obama
by Robert E. Rector
Special Report #45
[C]hildren living with single mothers are five times more likely to be poor than children in two-parent households. Children in single-parent homes are also more likely to drop out of school and become teen parents, even when income is factored out. And the evidence suggests that on average, children who live with their biological mother and father do better than those who live in stepfamilies or with cohabiting partners.... In light of these facts, policies that strengthen marriage for those who choose it and that discourage unintended births outside of marriage are sensible goals to pursue.
--Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope[1]
President-elect Obama, the collapse of marriage is the most important social problem facing the nation. When the War on Poverty began in the 1960s, 7 percent of U.S. children were born outside of marriage. Today, the number is 38 percent. Among blacks, it is 69 percent. You are in a unique position to reverse this alarming trend.
The decline of marriage is a major cause of child poverty. Roughly two-thirds of poor children live in single-parent homes. Marital collapse is also a major contributor to welfare dependence: Each year, government spends over $250 billion for means-tested welfare benefits for single parents.
When compared to similar children raised by two married biological parents, children raised in single-parent homes are more likely to fail in school, abuse drugs or alcohol, commit crimes, become pregnant as teens, and suffer from emotional and behavioral problems. Such children are also more likely to end up on welfare or in jails when they become adults.
Revitalized marriage can have a powerful impact in reducing poverty in low-income communities. For example, if poor women who have children out of wedlock were married to the actual fathers of their children, nearly two-thirds would be lifted out of poverty immediately.[2] Because the decline in marriage is linked to many other social problems, an increase in healthy marriage would to lead to a long-term drop in those problems as well.
Given these facts, policies that strengthen marriage for those who are interested and discourage births outside of marriage are indeed sensible. But the first step in developing such policies must be to look beyond the many misperceptions that cloud the issue. Effective policy must be based on facts.
Fact: Out-of-wedlock childbearing is not the same problem as teen pregnancy. Although 38 percent of children are born outside of marriage, only about one in seven of these non-marital births occurs to a girl under age 18. Most out-of-wedlock births occur to men and women in their early twenties. Half of the women who have children out of wedlock are cohabiting with the father at the time of birth; 75 percent are in a romantic relationship with the father.[3] Policymakers seeking to reduce out-of-wedlock births must look far beyond teen pregnancy.
Fact: Few out-of-wedlock births are accidental. The overwhelming majority of young adult women who have a non-marital birth strongly want to have children. Although they are ambivalent about the best timing, they want and expect to have children at a fairly young age. Most are also interested in marriage, but they do not see marriage or a stable relationship as an important precondition to having a baby. To a significant degree, the decision to have a child outside of marriage is a deliberate choice for these women.
Fact: Lack of access to birth control is not a significant factor contributing to "unintended pregnancy" or non-marital births. A recent survey of low-income women who had had a non-marital pregnancy found that only 1 percent reported that lack of access to birth control played a role in the pregnancy.[4]
Fact: Out-of-wedlock childbearing is concentrated among low-income, less educated men and women. In general, the women most likely to have a child without being married are those who have the least ability to support a family by themselves.
Fact: Although the decline in marriage is most prominent among blacks, it is also a serious problem among Hispanics and lower-income whites: 44 percent of Hispanic children and 25 percent of white children are born outside of marriage.
Fact: Low male wages and employment are not the principal cause of out-of-wedlock childbearing. The overwhelming majority of non-married fathers were employed at the time of the child's birth. Over half earn enough to support a family above the poverty level without the mother working at all.[5] Before the child's birth, the fathers-to-be, on average, earned more than the mothers-to-be. If, as some argue, the fathers were not economically prepared to support a family, the mothers were even less prepared. Other factors such as social norms concerning marriage, life-planning skills, and relationship skills play a far greater role than male wages in promoting out-of-wedlock childbearing.
Fact: Out-of-wedlock childbearing is not the result of a shortage of marriageable males. Nearly 40 percent of all American children, and 69 percent of black children, are born outside of marriage. The sheer magnitude of the problem undercuts the argument that it is caused by a shortage of marriageable men. The decline in marriage in low-income communities stems from changing social norms and from a welfare system that for decades has penalized marriage, not from a lack of millions of marriageable men.
Government should help low-income couples to move toward more prosperous lives by providing such men and women with education that increases their understanding of the strong link between marriage and better life outcomes and that equips them to make critical life decisions concerning childbearing and family formation more wisely.
Paradoxically, most low-income men and women who are likely to have children out of wedlock have favorable attitudes toward marriage: If anything, they tend to over-idealize it. However, many low-income couples do not believe that it is important to form a stable marital relationship before conceiving children and bringing them into the world. They also tend to believe that haphazard cohabiting relationships are likely to endure and flourish when, in reality, this seldom occurs.
Many low-income individuals choose to have children first and then work on finding suitable partners and building strong relationships. They fail to understand that this pattern is not likely to be successful. Most low-income young women, in particular, strongly want children and hope those children will grow up to enter the middle class, but they fail to appreciate the vitally important role a healthy marriage can play in boosting a child's success.
In The Audacity of Hope, you wrote:
[R]esearch shows that marriage education workshops can make a real difference in helping married couples stay together and in encouraging unmarried couples who are living together to form a more lasting bond. Expanding access to such services to low-income couples, perhaps in concert with job training and placement, medical coverage, and other services already available, should be something everybody can agree on.[6]
You were exactly right. By and large, young low-income men and women aspire to have strong, healthy marriages. They also seek upward social and economic mobility. Marriage education can help at-risk individuals appreciate the role that healthy marriage can have in meeting long-term life goals and can enable them to make decisions about childbearing that best match their life aspirations. These programs can also provide training in life partner selection and in skills that help to build healthy enduring relationships. Such programs should not be regarded as imposing alien middle-class values on the poor, but rather as providing vital tools to help individuals fulfill their real life goals.
You have also written, "most people agree that neither federal welfare programs nor the tax code should penalize married couples."[7] Again, you are right. Given the private and social benefits of marriage, it is absurd for the welfare industry to penalize marriage. Yet that is exactly what welfare does.
Specifically, welfare programs create disincentives to marriage because benefits are reduced as a family's income rises. A mother will receive far more from welfare if she is single than if she has an employed husband in the home. For many low-income couples, marriage means a reduction in government assistance and an overall decline in the couple's joint income. Marriage penalties occur in many means-tested programs such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. The welfare system should be overhauled to reduce such counterproductive incentives.
Now is the time for action. You and your Administration, by launching the following specific initiatives, can help to revitalize marriage in America.
Recognize that the key to arresting the decline of marriage in the U.S. is moral leadership. Use the White House bully pulpit to reaffirm the value and importance of marriage. You are uniquely suited to this task. Your strong personal affirmation of values will prove critical in transforming anti-marriage norms and in promoting a long-overdue renewal of marriage in low-income communities.
Use the bully pulpit to emphasize the historical importance of marriage within the black community. Remind the nation that even at the height of Jim Crow segregation prior to World War II, nine out of ten black children were born to married couples. Warn the nation that the same decline in marriage that afflicted black communities a generation ago is now battering low- and moderate-income white communities.
Encourage public advertising campaigns on the importance of marriage that are targeted to low-income communities.
Provide marriage education programs in high schools with a high proportion of at-risk youth. Most low-income girls strongly desire to have children. They also wish and intend to be good mothers. These young women will be very receptive to information that shows the positive effects of marriage on long-term child outcomes. Such education could be funded under the current "healthy marriage initiative" program at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Make voluntary marriage education widely available to interested couples in low-income communities. This could be done by expanding the small "healthy marriage initiative" currently operating in HHS. These programs may also provide job training to participants, but that should not be their primary emphasis.
Provide marriage education referrals in Title X birth control clinics. Government- funded Title X clinics operate in nearly every county in the U.S., providing free or subsidized birth control to over 4 million low-income adult women each year. Many clients of these clinics go on to have children out of wedlock within a short period. With 38 percent of children born outside of marriage, it is obvious that a policy of merely promoting birth control is highly ineffective in stemming the rise of non-marital births. In addition to providing birth control, Title X clinics should be required to offer referrals to education in relationships, marriage, and life-planning skills to clients who are interested.
Reduce the anti-marriage penalties in welfare. The simplest way to accomplish this would be to increase the value of the earned income tax credit (EITC) for married couples with children; this could offset the anti-marriage penalties existing in other programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid.
Conclusion
More than 40 years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then a member of the White House staff under President Lyndon Johnson, warned of the impending collapse of the black married family. He predicted the social calamities that this collapse would bring. Moynihan was right, but in subsequent decades, as the problem mushroomed, the nation largely hid its head in the sand and ignored the devastation. In the four decades since Moynihan's warning, the government has done almost nothing to protect or restore marriage.
Today, the collapse of marriage about which Moynihan warned so long ago is escalating rapidly across other racial groups. Forty years of neglect and silence is enough. You now have a unique opportunity and ability to halt this destructive trend and to take the first decisive steps to restore marriage in our society.
Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in the Domestic Policy Studies Department at The Heritage Foundation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (New York: Crown Publishers, 2006), p. 334.
[2] Robert E. Rector, Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., Patrick F. Fagan, and Lauren R. Noyes, "Increasing Marriage Will Dramatically Reduce Child Poverty," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA03-06, May 20, 2003.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Kathryn Edin, Paula England, Emily Fitzgibbon Shafer, and Joanna Reed, "Forming Fragile Families: Was the Baby Planned, Unplanned, or In Between?" in Paula England and Kathryn Edin, eds., Unmarried Couples with Children (New York: Russell Sage Publications, 2007), p. 32.
[5] Rector et al., "Increasing Marriage Will Dramatically Reduce Child Poverty."
[6] Obama, The Audacity of Hope, p. 334.
[7] Ibid.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Two Cows
I received the following via email quite some time ago. It is not very PC but sure is funny.
DEMOCRAT
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
You push for higher taxes so the government can provide cows for everyone.
REPUBLICAN
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So?
SOCIALIST
You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.
COMMUNIST
You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.
CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.
BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the other, and then pours the milk down the drain.
AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows.
You are surprised when one cow drops dead.
You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.
FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.
JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.
GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk,
and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.
ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.
RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.
TALIBAN CORPORATION
You have all the cows in Afghanistan , which are two.
You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature' s private parts.
You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.
IRAQI CORPORATION
You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send radio tapes of their mooing.
POLISH CORPORATION
You have two bulls.
Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.
BELGIAN CORPORATION
You have one cow.
The cow is schizophrenic.
Sometimes the cow thinks he's French, other times he's Flemish.
The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow.
The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow's milk.
The cow asks permission to be cut in half.
The cow dies happy.
FLORIDA CORPORATION
You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote for the
black one.
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is the best-looking cow.
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
You have millions of cows.
They make real California cheese.
Only five speak English.
Most are illegal.
Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.
DEMOCRAT
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
You push for higher taxes so the government can provide cows for everyone.
REPUBLICAN
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So?
SOCIALIST
You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.
COMMUNIST
You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.
CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.
BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the other, and then pours the milk down the drain.
AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows.
You are surprised when one cow drops dead.
You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.
FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.
JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.
GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk,
and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.
ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.
RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.
TALIBAN CORPORATION
You have all the cows in Afghanistan , which are two.
You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature' s private parts.
You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.
IRAQI CORPORATION
You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send radio tapes of their mooing.
POLISH CORPORATION
You have two bulls.
Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.
BELGIAN CORPORATION
You have one cow.
The cow is schizophrenic.
Sometimes the cow thinks he's French, other times he's Flemish.
The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow.
The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow's milk.
The cow asks permission to be cut in half.
The cow dies happy.
FLORIDA CORPORATION
You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote for the
black one.
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is the best-looking cow.
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
You have millions of cows.
They make real California cheese.
Only five speak English.
Most are illegal.
Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Obama's Unpatriotic Cabinet Picks
According to then vice presidential hopeful Joe Biden people who pay their taxes are patriotic. What does that say about two prominent nominations to President Obama's cabinet. First there is the head of the Treasury Dept. who makes the "mistake" of not paying taxes for years. Remember our president wants a guy who is either too stupid or too corrupt to pay his own self-employment taxes to head the department that is supposed to make sure that all of us are paying our taxes. Either way I question the judgement of our new president. Now Obama's pick for Health and Human Services, Tom Daschel, is guilty of not paying more than $100,000 in taxes.
If Biden's definition of patriotism is right, then our new president is trying to fill his cabinet with un-patriotic or treasonous individuals. Is this the change 54%of Americans voted for?
If Biden's definition of patriotism is right, then our new president is trying to fill his cabinet with un-patriotic or treasonous individuals. Is this the change 54%of Americans voted for?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Inauguration Day Benediction
As has been said so many times today, this was a historic day. We witnessed the inauguration of our country's first bi-racial president. Millions packed the national mall to attend the event. Words of inspiration were spoken in prayer, poetry, and prose. There was only one moment that left me a little put out. During the benediction, the African-American pastor asked that White would embrace right. I understand that he was eye-witness to the injustices suffered during the era of Jim Crow and that he fought the long, hard battle for civil rights. But I think that his joking comment that debased whites as wrong while at the same time elevating all other races did a disservice to the ceremony and to his otherwise well composed benediction.
If voting for a bi-racial candidate for president puts whites embracing right, then millions did so this year. There would be no President Obama without the votes of millions of these wrong-thinking whites. This point was omitted from his prayer. I admittedly did not vote for President Obama. My decision was base on principle not pigmentation. But I do feel a little bad for all those whites that did vote for him and are still considered wrong by this prominent black minister. What must they do in order to please him? Is he profiling them because they are white. Are they being unfairly stereotyped because some whites like me did not vote for President Obama? What did the pastor really mean? A word of advice to the reverend would be to leave comedy and racial slurs out of your prayers to a father who is no respecter of persons and should be approached in reverence.
If voting for a bi-racial candidate for president puts whites embracing right, then millions did so this year. There would be no President Obama without the votes of millions of these wrong-thinking whites. This point was omitted from his prayer. I admittedly did not vote for President Obama. My decision was base on principle not pigmentation. But I do feel a little bad for all those whites that did vote for him and are still considered wrong by this prominent black minister. What must they do in order to please him? Is he profiling them because they are white. Are they being unfairly stereotyped because some whites like me did not vote for President Obama? What did the pastor really mean? A word of advice to the reverend would be to leave comedy and racial slurs out of your prayers to a father who is no respecter of persons and should be approached in reverence.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)