"
"
I keep reading that wealthy Americans state that they want to be taxed more for the fiscal well-being of the nation:
More than 40 of the nation’s millionaires have joined Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength to ask President Obama to discontinue the tax breaks established for them during the Bush administration, as Salon reports.
“For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled,” their website states. “We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.”
To my fellow Americans who want to be taxed more, it’s time to put your money where your mouth is and I have found your opportunity. If you would like to donate to the federal government, all you have to do is mail a check to the US Treasury at this address:
Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called “Gifts to the United States.” This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782
However, if you do not feel inclined to donate your money for the fiscal well-being of the country–now that you know you can–please refrain from saying you don’t need the money or want to be taxed. Checkmate.
Today, the Democrats dropped a 1,900 page spending binge on the American public. With their grip on Capitol Hill expiring in just a few weeks, Democrats are rushing through one last party on the taxpayer dime.
No doubt, many spending whoppers will be unearthed as the bill becomes more public, but this little gem, passed to us by a source on Capitol Hill, really caught our eye:
PACIFIC COASTAL SALMON RECOVERY
For necessary expenses associated with the restoration of Pacific salmon populations, $80,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2012: Provided, That of the funds provided herein the Secretary of Commerce may issue grants to the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, California, and Alaska, and Federally-recognized tribes of the Columbia River and Pacific Coast (including Alaska) for projects necessary for conservation of salmon and steelhead populations that are listed as threatened or endangered, or identified by a State as at risk to be so-listed, for maintaining populations necessary for exercise of tribal treaty fishing rights or native subsistence fishing, or for conservation of Pacific coastal salmon and steelhead habitat, based on guidelines to be developed by the Secretary of Commerce….
Hmm…Last time we checked, Nevada was landlocked and didn’t remotely touch the Pacific Ocean or any of the tributaries of the Columbia River (which run extensively through Idaho.)
Now, how would Nevada get to be eligible for grants to protect the Pacific Salmon. Do the fish have a gambling addiction?
Too much of that Hopey Changey Thing yields a desire for restoration, to move forward by turning back. What's striking about the current revival is that it's led by our most emphatically modern master of the cross-platform political-celebrity mashup, Sarah Palin, as she calls for 'not transformation but restoration with a 'Great Awakening' that we already feel emerging across America.'I like it. And I hope history confims the analogy. I look forward to the chance to hear Sarah Palin deliver a convention address as did Ronald Reagan in 1980:
More than anything else, I want my candidacy to unify our country; to renew the American spirit and sense of purpose. I want to carry our message to every American, regardless of party affiliation, who is a member of this community of shared values.The full speech at the link.
Never before in our history have Americans been called upon to face three grave threats to our very existence, any one of which could destroy us. We face a disintegrating economy, a weakened defense and an energy policy based on the sharing of scarcity.
The major issue of this campaign is the direct political, personal and moral responsibility of Democratic Party leadership --i n the White House and in Congress -- for this unprecedented calamity which has befallen us. They tell us they have done the most that humanly could be done. They say that the United States has had its day in the sun; that our nation has passed its zenith. They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems; that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities.
My fellow citizens, I utterly reject that view. The American people, the most generous on earth, who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves. Those who believe we can have no business leading the nation.
I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose. We have come together here because the American people deserve better from those to whom they entrust our nation's highest offices, and we stand united in our resolve to do something about it.
The Senate Republican Policy Committee reports that the omnibus appropriations measure includes more than $1 billion in funding to implement the Affordable Care Act.
An increase of more than $80.7 million in the Department of Health and Human Services’ Departmental Management account, to enforce the new insurance mandates and regulations created in the law. This $80 million “plus-up” is also significantly higher than the $44.9 million increase proposed in Democrats’ year-long CR. (Provision found on page 1015 of the legislation.)
An increase of over $175.9 million in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Program Management account, to implement the massive Medicaid expansion and cuts to Medicare Advantage. (Provision found on pages 1000-1001 of the legislation.)
Spending of $750 million from the Prevention and Public Health “slush fund” created in the law. Among the programs receiving “slush fund” dollars are the new community transformation grant programs, which “could provide billions of dollars for walking paths, streetlights, jungle gyms, and even farmers’ markets,” provisions that have caused controversy. (Provisions found on pages 983, 988-89, 998, and 999 of the legislation.)
Funding of $3 million for the National Health Care Workforce Commission created in the law, just one of the 159 boards, bureaucracies, and programs created by the majority’s government takeover of health care. (Provision found on page 1077 of the legislation.)
Alarm bells appear to be going off in droves at these attempts to pad the bill with all sorts of goodies, and this is undoubtedly an attempt to stymie the "defund" strategy that House Republicans are considering. Of course, even if these appropriations remain in the bill, Republicans can always try and strip them out later -- part of the fiscal chess game that will play out next year.
GOP Donors are not happy about Michael Steele’s surprise announcement yesterday.
Some of the most prominent donors warned that they would not raise money if Steele stays.
The Politico reported:
"Some of the Republican Party’s most prominent donors reacted Tuesday with shock — and then fury — to Michael Steele’s decision to seek re-election, bluntly warning that they would not raise money for the party if the controversial chairman wins another term.
None of the contributors has a vote on the committee, but with worries about the debt-ridden party’s finances hanging over Steele, the unambiguous threats could further undermine the incumbent’s already-dim prospects for victory.
While nothing firm was planned, a number of the contributors said they had been in contact with one another since Steele’s announcement Monday night about what they could do to send a message to the 168 members of the committee who will decide the next chairman in January.
“If Mr. Steele were to prevail, it will further alienate the party’s major financial supporters and most active fundraisers,” said Wayne Berman, a top Washington lobbyist and bundler who served as the McCain presidential campaign’s finance chairman in 2008. “His arrogant style, cult of personality and embarrassing mismanagement are sources of great discontent with the major fundraisers of the party.”
Should Steele return as chairman, Berman added, it will spur many donors to do what they did in 2010 and “support the many successful third-party groups.”
You never know what Joe Scarborough will do or say. One day he’s donating to conservative candidates, the next he’s calling Sarah Palin a “gaudy circus sideshow.” Now he’s accusing his own network, MSNBC, of bias.
The claim is based on the way the media treats Bush and Reagan-appointed judges. According to Joe, the media makes a point of tying a conservative judge to his presidential appointee, but it doesn’t seem to do it for Clinton-appointed judges. That, he says, is wrong.
The Daily Caller reports on what he said:
“I’m just curious, and it was our staff that did it this time – I’m always curious when there is a controversial issue, and [Jon] Meacham, you know this is true, that mainstream media doesn’t like – they always will say ‘a George W. Bush-appointee,’ ‘a Reagan appointee,’” Scarborough said. “It would be legitimate, and you Jon, you know this it to be true when a Democrat does something unpopular, they never say ‘a Clinton appointee.’ Never, never. Why is that, Jon?”
For all the times that President Obama promised 'you'll get to keep your doctor' under his health-care reforms, he apparently failed to ask any practicing doctors.The whole new nurse practitioner thing isn't new. We on the right saw this one coming down the pike long ago: Detroit Free Press admits that under ObamaCare, you will see a nurse practitioner, not a doctor because Obama 'created or saved' a massive doctor shortage. If ObamaCare is fully implemented, this is how your next visit will look like:A recent survey finds that countless MDs will respond to ObamaCare by limiting which patients they'll see.
The Physicians Foundation asked 2,400 doctors and American Medical Association members what they thought of the new law; a full 67 percent were against it.
More important, it asked how they'd cope with the new rules (which don't fully kick in until 2014). Sixty percent said they feel compelled to 'close or significantly restrict their practices to certain categories of patients.' And 59 percent said the 'reform' would oblige them to spend less time with the patients they do have.
Of course, many doctors already limit how many patients they'll take on who depend on government insurance (whose fees rarely cover an MD's costs). But it'll get worse under ObamaCare: In the survey, some 87 percent said they would significantly restrict Medicare patients and 93 percent said they'd significantly restrict Medicaid patients.
How can the government claim its health programs are popular when folks who would actually deliver care are running away? I'm not worried about physicians (we'll find ways to survive), but about our patients.
All in all, the survey found that 74 percent of doctors will alter how they practice.
To stay in business under ObamaCare, doctors will have to adjust. Some will see fewer patients themselves and hire nurse practitioners to help carry the load; others will work part-time and supplement their income elsewhere. Many will join groups or become salaried employees of hospitals or clinics.
It’s not just the manatees.
The record freeze in the southern US is killing the sea turtle babies, too.
(The Sea.org)
Scientists are having to transport the eggs to save the endangered sea turtle babies from the record cold.
The Sun reported:
Travel is nothing new to sea turtles, but they aren’t usually accustomed to boat and car rides.
But three late-in-the-season nests found in Garden City Beach are getting special treatment right now because of the chill that has settled over the region. Experts moved some of the eggs from the Grand Strand to Charleston and this week, when the hatchlings are ready, they will travel to North Carolina for a boat ride to the warmer Gulf Stream waters that sweep closer to the N.C. shore.
Loggerheads are the area’s most familiar sea turtles.
The tropical-water-loving Atlantic green turtles, which have a later nesting season than loggerheads, don’t often lay clutches of eggs on these shores. Loggerheads can be found as far north as New England, but endangered green turtles mostly stay down in Florida and the Caribbean.
The Sea Turtle Conservancy says green turtles live in tropical and temperate water, where temperatures are 65 or higher. This month, the Grand Strand’s water temperatures are in the mid-50s, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.Karen Fuss, environmental educator for the Burroughs & Chapin Center for Marine and Wetlands Studies at Coastal Carolina University, said the cold water can stun the turtles and stop them from swimming.
“They have to swim, swim, swim until they reach where they want to be,” Fuss said.
Meanwhile, the polar bear populations are booming.
"What media bias?
The Washington Post failed to report its own poll that shows Obamacare sinking in popularity.
NewsBusters reported:
"A new ABC-Washington Post poll found ObamaCare sunk to its lowest popularity yet: 52 percent opposed, and only 43 percent in favor. ABC mentioned the poll without fanfare at the end of a Jake Tapper report on Monday’s World News, and Tapper added this was the health law’s “lowest level of popularity ever.” But Tuesday’s Washington Post reported not one sentence on the poll in the paper – even as they reported in the paper that the same survey found Obama’s tax-and-unemployment-compensation deal has “broad bipartisan support.”
This is the same Post that highlighted the news on Page One on October 20, 2009, when they found a “clear majority” in favor of a socialist “public option” — amid charges they oversampled Democrats.
Senate Democrats unveiled earlier this afternoon a 1,924-page omnibus spending bill to fund the government through fiscal year 2011. Aides to GOP legislators on Capitol Hill have already begun poring over the $1.1 trillion package, describing the proposal as “a total mess” to Fox News.
Republican lawmakers — including those in the lower chamber, like Speaker-elect John Boehner — are already vowing to kill the appropriations measure, which freezes 2010’s $3.5 trillion budget for the following year without allowing for any spending cuts.
Offered in the waning days of the present congressional session, the bill designates $80 billion in federal funds for the preservation of Pacific salmon and $14 million in clean water grants for Alaska’s native population. Of course, it doesn’t end there.
We’ve obtained a copy of the lame duck legislation so that RedState’s readers might begin dissecting the bill, posting the most egregious examples of pork barrel spending in the comments section. Embedded below the fold you will find the full nearly 2,000-page document.
Senate Democrats began rolling out Tuesday a year-end, government-wide spending bill that cuts more than $26 billion from President Barack Obama’s 2011 requests even as it defies earmark bans – or veto threats over Joint Strike Fighter engines.
Filling more than 1,900 pages and costing $1.1 trillion, the measure is sure to invite criticism as a last stand by the Senate’s old bulls before the more conservative, tea party-oriented Congress takes hold in January. But weeks of bipartisan work have gone into the effort to meet spending targets previously embraced by the Republican leadership and also try to salvage something from the failed budget process this year....Fox News is reporting:
Even before the official release Tuesday afternoon, South Dakota Sen. John Thune, chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, attacked Democrats for ignoring, he said, the “clear will expressed by voters this past election.” And New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, a senior Republican on both the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committees, said a short-term continuing resolution would be preferable at this stage give the shortness of time before the holiday recess.
Republicans poring over a 1,924-page overarching spending bill proposed by Democrats to cover the rest of the fiscal year are threatening to grind the legislation to a halt, citing massive earmark spending, which, if passed, would be enacted into law without debate in the full Senate.Shut it down. Do only the bear minimum to keep the government operating for another 60 days. Then either go home, or grind the Senate to a standstill.
Two sources who spoke to Fox News are describing the legislation as 'a total mess.'
The disturbing protests that are spreading across Europe are setting the table for similar showdowns across America in the coming months and years. Public employee unions and their socialist allies will take to the streets of Washington, D.C. and state capitals as the federal and state governments finally deal with out of control spending.
It’s largely because, for the longest time, our elected leaders were more interested in courting unions for money and votes than keeping government spending in check.
And some are still putting the problem off – and actually making it worse – by continuing to negotiate multi-year contracts with unions with no real way to pay for them. That’s particularly true in our nation’s public schools.
In Anderson, Indiana, the union-controlled school board recently tried to pull a fast one and actully negotiated an unheard-of 10-year contract with the teachers union. Community outrage led to court action and the length of the contract was cut to 5 years – still way too long in this economic climate.
More recently, news surfaced that the state could be taking over that district because it could be insolvent within two years. But who cares? The union now has a signed contract that carries the weight of law. The children may not be learning, but at least the adults know somebody has to come up with their pay and benefits!
Elsewhere, another school district in fiscal shambles, Milwaukee, just inked a four year contract with its union. This district is already over a billion dollars in the hole when its pension obligation is factored in. The new governor and legislature will likely be trying to reign in out-of-control costs in schools across the state, but with this new four-year contract, Milwaukee’s union will be immune.
In states and school districts where the union doesn’t call the shots, we’re likely to see serious spending reform: performance pay, employees paying a bigger share of health insurance costs, 401(k) type retirement plans and other concepts that in effect erode union power. Because of that last fact, unions will take to the streets and will likely attempt to maintain their power and perks by any means necessary.
If our leaders are serious about saving America, this clash is unavoidable. We might as well deal with it now. States and school districts ought to begin the process of bankruptcy soon. It’s time to deal with the very real, unsustainable spending commitments that don’t stand a chance of actually being met, short of dramatic increases in taxes or severely rationing student programs. That way they can get out from under the unsustainable contracts and bloated pension systems that have no chance of being fully funded.
We know how the unions and their socialist allies will react so we might as well get on with it. Hard-working Americans will stand with the leaders like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie that are making the tough decisions for the good of taxpayers.
Americans stood with the Tea Party in the recent election and sent a clear message: get spending under control.
But doing that requires standing up to brute thugs. Let’s meet the AFL-CIO, SEIU, NEA and AFT in the streets. Our financial security depends on it.
Judge Henry Hudson’s ruling that the individual mandate to require the purchase of health insurance is unconstitutional will make the unpopular new health law even more unpopular by making its impact worse than originally anticipated. If Judge Hudson’s narrow ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court and nothing happens to change the current law -- always a safe assumption given our sclerotic system -- the mandate will go away, leaving the rest of the problematic legislation behind, with potentially disastrous effects.
Last June, the Congressional Budget Office prepared an analysis of the impact of the removal of just the individual mandate. According to the CBO, the elimination of the mandate would increase the number of uninsured compared to current expectations. Many people fail to realize this, but the new law, for all its spending and bureaucratic machinations, would not eliminate the problem of the uninsured even with the mandate. Per CBO, there are likely to be 23 million uninsured residents in 2019 under the new law. If the mandate were to go away, this number of uninsured would increase even further, to 39 million in 2019. The 16 million additional uninsured people would come from a mix of fewer people getting Medicaid, coverage in the individual mandate, or exchange coverage.
In addition, the loss of the mandate coupled with the new regulatory burdens that the law imposes on insurance companies, would lead to significant health insurance premium increases. This is because of adverse selection -- healthier uninsured people who are not forced to purchase or procure insurance will not do so, while less healthy people will take advantage of the government subsidies and new requirements that insurers take all comers and purchase insurance. Insurers will as a result have to cover a less healthy pool of individuals, which will lead to increased premiums. As CBO puts it, “This adverse selection would increase premiums for new non-group policies (purchased either in the exchanges or directly from insurers in the non-group market) by an estimated 15 to 20 percent relative to current law.”
These changes would also reduce the cost of the new law. According to CBO, the mandate-less version of the Obama health law would shrink the deficit by $252 billion over the period from 2011-2020, largely because fewer people would take up government subsidized health offerings, be they from the expansion of Medicaid or the new exchanges. But the law would still be hugely expensive, and would not have that much of an impact on the number of uninsured, which was after all its primary selling point. It certainly would not "bend the cost curve down," an old selling point that has largely disappeared from Democratic rhetoric.
In a nutshell, the result would be some decrease in the cost to government, fewer people covered than projected, and increased premium costs to individuals. The lower cost will not be felt directly, but the increased premiums and higher number of uninsured will. The judge’s ruling makes the already unsustainable legislation even less sustainable, from both an economic and a political perspective.
Health economists and policy analysts have long known that Medicare spends much more, per patient, in some parts of the country than in others. In fact, the primary project of a large research group at Dartmouth is devoted to analyzing the geographic patters in Medicare spending.
Last year, Atul Gawande brought this phenomenon greater public attention with an article in The New Yorker on medical care in the areas of McAllen and El Paso, two regions in Texas that have superficially similar demographics but vastly different levels of per-patient Medicare spending. However, several recent studies suggest that the regional variation might be the result of Medicare’s payment systems and that privately insured patients experience less variation in treatment levels, perhaps sacrificing quality of care.
Many policy wonks tend to assume that the lower levels of spending are the correct levels, and the higher levels are due to high levels of wasteful health care. The Dartmouth group attributes the variation to differences in “practice patterns”—essentially, regional variations in physician culture that lead to more unnecessary care in the more expensive locations. Dr. Gawande, who interviewed doctors and hospital administrators in McAllen (but not in El Paso), attributed the difference to “the culture of money,” which led doctors to recommend more intensive procedures to more patients than absolutely necessary.
Underlying both of those explanations is the assumption that physician behavior is to blame, not anything about the Medicare program. Indeed, the researchers use Medicare data not because they are interested in Medicare as such, but because Medicare datasets are easily available, and they might be reasonable if there are no systematic differences between how physician treat Medicare patients and how they treat other patients.
But is that assumption valid? Can we really assume that Medicare data is a valid sample for analyzing treatment of all patients? Or is this just a case of “looking where the light is better”? Might the pattern look different for non-Medicare patients? If so, the problem might not be doctors in certain areas but in the Medicare program itself and the way it adjusts payments for different areas.
An article published this week in the journal Health Affairs by Luisa Franzini, Osama I. Mikhail, and Jonathan S. Skinner suggests that the difference between McAllen and El Paso investigated by Dr. Gawande might really be a feature of Medicare, not of local physician culture. They obtained data on treatment of patients in both locations covered by Medicare and also data on patients in both locations covered by a private, non-profit insurance company—Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas.
What they found calls into question the assumptions that health policy wonks have been making for years: While Medicare indeed spends almost twice as much more per patient in McAllen than in El Paso, Blue Cross spends about the same in both places. In fact, Blue Cross’s per-patient spending was actually slightly lower in El Paso. These findings persisted for overall spending, as well as for spending on specific types of services and several specific diseases.
This confirms results found by other researchers looking at the same question on a nationwide basis. Andrew Rettenmaier and Thomas Saving (a former Medicare trustee) found that state-by-state variation in per-patient Medicare spending was not strongly correlated with total per-capita health care spending. In addition, Rong Yi found that regional variation in spending on privately insured patients was closely correlated with measures of disease burden. And Tomas Philipson and colleagues found that geographic variation in health care utilization is substantially larger for patients in government programs compared to those insured in the private sector.
Why the difference? Philipson and colleagues point out that economic theory suggests that private insurers are less able to control prices but have stronger incentives to restrain utilization while keeping patients (their customers) satisfied. Franzini and colleagues point out that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas, like most large private insurers, implements disease management programs for patients with chronic disease—programs that both improve patient health and reduce hospital visits, emergencies, and other sources of excess cost. Medicare does not provide, or reimburse for, disease management services; these services are available to Medicare patients only if they enroll in private-sector Medicare Advantage plans that provide them.
Furthermore, private insurers have substantial incentives to root out fraudulent bills. Fraudulent billing, if undetected, not only hits their bottom line but would force them to raise premiums and lose business to competitors that can better prevent fraud. Medicare, on the other hand, has little incentive to prevent fraud and devotes only a small amount of resources to that end. Indeed, the areas with the highest per-patient spending figures are often those with the highest levels of known fraud.
It appears from the evidence that the large variation in Medicare is not indicative of something deeply wrong with the way health care is delivered throughout the system even outside of Medicare but rather an indication that something is deeply wrong with Medicare. Not the doctors and not the patients—but with Medicare’s payment system, service mix, and incentives.
"An ongoing study in Yellowstone National Park seeks to measure the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a response to geologic activity and as a possible predictor of some geologic events. A story covering this study notes that researchers estimate that Yellowstone emits 45,000 tons of CO2 per day. That is about 16.5 million tons per year.
The EPA estimates that the average car emits between five and six tons of CO2 per year. So natural geologic activity in Yellowstone contributes CO2 equivalent to about 3 million cars. The current attempts by the EPA to limit CO2 emissions would be dangerous for the American economy, but they would have no impact on the millions of tons Yellowstone emits every year.
More seriously, the EPA regulations would also have little impact on the billions of additional tons of CO2 that China, India, and the developing world will emit each year in the decades ahead. As a result, the regulations would have damaging impacts on the American economy, but just like cap-and-trade restrictions, they would have negligible impact on world temperatures.
"This year, Social Security paid out more money than it took in for the first time since 1983. If the economy rebounds, Social Security is expected to be in the black by 2012 and will stay that way until 2015. But starting in 2016 Social Security will be in the red for as long as the Social Security Trustees can see. Under current law, Social Security is scheduled to pay out $7.7 trillion more in benefits over the next 75 years than it can afford to pay from its payroll taxes.
Heritage Foundation retirement and economic policy expert David John has a new paper out making the case that one way to keep Social Security solvent is by raising the retirement age, which, as John ably details has been a moving target ever since Social Security was first created:
"Although “mid-sixties” is typically the age range defined as the beginning of retirement, history shows that until fairly recently, it was common for men to be employed after they reached 65. In 1880, 76 percent of men were employed at age 65, a proportion that declined to 43 percent in 1940, and 18 percent in 1990. Although the current recession has caused more workers to postpone retirement, a 2009 survey of retirees found that 84 percent had entered retirement at age 65 or earlier.
When Social Security was established in 1935, state pension systems were split equally between those that determined 65 as the retirement age and those that determined 70 as the retirement age. The Commission on Economic Security, which designed the system under FDR, was swayed to adopt age 65, partly because the federal Railroad Retirement System, which was established in 1934, used 65, and partly because analyses at the time showed that 65 was actuarially feasible at low levels of taxation.
Since the program’s inception, the retirement age has undergone only two modifications. The first was the addition of the early eligibility age (EEA) (under which recipients receive partial benefits), which was created for women in 1956 and for men in 1961. The modification for women was motivated by politeness rather than policy considerations: Wives were generally three years younger than their husbands, and a gracious Congress wanted to allow couples to retire at the same time. Men were later offered early retirement as a mechanism to cope with high unemployment by encouraging workers to leave the labor force.
The second modification was the increase in the normal retirement age (NRA) from 65 to 67, which was implemented in the early 1980s because Social Security was nearing a point where it did not have the funds to print benefits checks. In 1982, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security Congressman J. J. Pickle (D–TX) first proposed phasing in an increase to age 68 over a period of 10 years beginning in 1990. Pickle’s proposal was panned at first by Speaker Tip O’Neill in what Time magazine then dubbed “one of the more egregious examples of partisanship.” The Reagan Administration had landed itself in hot water over reform proposals it introduced in 1981, and O’Neill was not inclined to let Democrats absorb any of the heat with a proposal that would reduce benefits. In 1983, when a reform package was signed into law, it was clear that some increase in the retirement age would have to be part of the compromise. The Senate initially passed an increase to age 66, but Pickle was able to push through an increase to 67 in conference committee. Even then, the increase was not scheduled to take effect until 2000, when an increase to 66 was phased in year by year in two-month increments. A further increase to 67 using the same phase-in will begin in 2017.
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has just released an omnibus spending bill that will lock-in 2010 spending levels through the next fiscal year (ending September 30). The 1,924 page bill (pdf) contains unknown thousands of earmarks and will prevent the next Congress from making spending cuts until fiscal year 2012. Sen. John Thune (R-SD) released the following statement:
The attempt by Democrat leadership to rush through a nearly 2,000 page spending bill in the final days of the lame-duck session ignores the clear will expressed by the voters this past election. This bill is loaded up with pork projects and should not get a vote. Congress should listen to the American people and stop this reckless spending.
For the first time in the history of the modern budget process, this Congress failed to even vote on a budget for next year. This Congress has forfeited their right to spend. The next Congress should be as free as possible to set spending priorities. The 111th must pass something to keep the government running, but it should do so with as short-term a continuing resolution as possible.
"A New Hampshire couple told a school board Monday that their son's civil rights were violated when he was assigned a book that refers Jesus Christ as a 'wine-guzzling vagrant and precocious socialist.'Here's a key passage from the book itself:The 2001 book, 'Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America,' documents author Barbara Ehrenreich's attempts to live on minimum wage as she critiques the nation's economic system.
Aimee and Dennis Taylor complained about the book's foul language, descriptions of drug use and characterization of Christianity when it was assigned to their son's personal finance class at Bedford High School in the fall and later pulled him out of school at his request. On Monday, they asked the school board to remove the book from the curriculum and create a committee of parents to review and rate all other books used in the school, but the board held off on making a decision until it hears from its curriculum committee next month.
Dennis Taylor said school officials were either utterly careless in choosing the book or were 'intentionally agreeing with Ehrenreich and taking the position that Jesus was a drunken bum.'
'The administration and the people with the master's degrees taking care of our children clearly in this case seemed to lack common sense, common decency and with regard to civil rights, an understanding of common law,' he said.
He noted that had the book been turned into a movie, his son would be too young to see it given the obscenities. And both he and his wife said the passages about Jesus were an attack on their son's faith.
'Jesus makes his appearance here only as a corpse; the living man, the wine-guzzling vagrant and precocious socialist, is never once mentioned, nor anything he ever had to say.'What course is the book used for? Personal finance. In other indoctrination news: New bill requires gay history in textbooks to fight bullying
Openly gay state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, introduced a bill today that would require public school materials to include the historical contributions of gay people as a way to fight bullying.So basically, the public education system is being flipped by Marxists to make Jesus look bad, and for gays to look good. When public education began, it used to be that federal dollars were used to print Bibles for all schools:
Leno's Senate Bill 48 is similar to a proposal that was approved by the Legislature in 2006 but vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
'Most textbooks don't include any historical information about the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) movement, which has great significance to both California and U.S. history,' Leno said in a press release. Leno was recently named to prominent leadership as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.
Leno added: 'Our collective silence on this issue perpetuates negative stereotypes of LGBT people and leads to increased bullying of young people.'
"
