Right Mind

Forced Vaccination: Who should make the healthcare decisions for you and your family?

According to Blog Critics:

The Obama administration may be considering forced vaccination of children and adults in response to the possibility of a swine flu epidemic this fall.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has been preparing public school superintendents for the possibility that their schools will be used by the government as inoculation centers for a nationwide swine flu vaccination program, which may include mandatory vaccination of public school students who are already required to receive several other government mandated vaccinations.

While there is a genuine threat of a swine flu pandemic, it does not justify the level of fear mongering being engaged in by the Obama Administration at a time which makes it look very much as if they are using this issue to advance their health care agenda. Although numbers like 90,000 deaths and 1.2 million hospitalizations from the CDC seem frightening, they fall within the parameters for the effects of the yearly outbreaks of other kinds of flu.

There is no legitimate reason for any program of forced mass vaccination, especially directed at school children and using state mandated public education requirements as a threat to force parents to comply. Mandatory vaccination programs are a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy and personal security. It is especially important that the rights of children and the rights of their parents to make decisions about their welfare be protected.

Here in Texas we saw an attempt at forced vaccination when Governor Rick Perry tried to mandate that all teenage girls be given the Human Papilloma Virus vaccine at a cost of over $400 per vaccination to the taxpayers. Outrage over the huge tax cost of the program was exceeded only by anger over having this vaccine forced on teenagers. Protests were so effective that the program was ultimately killed.

Now we need to do the same, in this case, on a nationwide basis.

The issue of vaccination – in fact, the entire healthcare debate – comes down to one very simple question: Who should make the healthcare decisions for you and your family? Should it be you or should it be legislators or commissions of nameless and faceless government bureaucrats like those created by proposed healthcare legislation?

This issue is so important and so personal that giving up control to government is terrifying. As a result, we are seeing massive, nationwide grassroots protests against government-run healthcare because whatever the faults of the current system, people want to keep control and make their own health care decisions.

Vaccines are one of the great advancements of modern medicine and for the most part they are safe as well as important for protecting children and adults from real health threats. Nonetheless, it is still morally wrong for government to force any kind of choice like this on citizens against their will. Government should protect freedom of choice, not take it away.

The Republican Liberty Caucus is working to oppose both so-called healthcare reform and mandated vaccination programs. Citizens have the right to make their own health care decisions, including opting out of current school vaccination requirements and not being forced to comply with any future government inoculation program.

Citizens should be trusted to make responsible decisions about the health of their family members and the safety of the community. The role of the government should be to protect citizens and their rights, not to make medical decisions for them without their consent.

So I ask again, who do you want making your health care decisions?

CBS/MSNBC Lie to their (few) Viewers Yet Again

From The Washington Times:

On the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric asked, "Are we really still debating health care when a man brings a handgun to a church where the president is speaking?" Deliberately or not, she got the facts wrong. As we know, Mr. Kostric did bring a gun to the church, but the president was not there and never was scheduled to speak there. Mr. Obama spoke at a separate event at a local high school at a different time. Not letting facts get in the way of her hysterical story line, Ms. Couric linked Mr. Kostric's gun to "fear and frankly ignorance drown[ing] out the serious debate that needs to take place about an issue that affects the lives of millions of people."

In another case in Arizona, a black man staged an event with a local radio host and carried a semiautomatic rifle a few blocks away from another Obama town-hall meeting. According to the radio station, the staged event was "partially motivated to do so because of the controversy surrounding William Kostric." This occurrence was not an example of an outraged gun-toting Obama protester, but a stunt to garner attention for a shock jock. Of course, this inconvenient truth was ignored by most news outlets.

MSNBC misrepresented the facts to try to back up a bogus claim about racism being behind opposition to Mr. Obama's agenda. On Donny Deutsch's Aug. 18 show about the Arizona town-hall meeting, the producers aired a clip of the anonymous black man carrying the so-called assault rifle -- but the network edited the tape so the man's race was obscured. Truth be damned, MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer said, "There are questions whether this has a racial overtone. I mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists." Another commentator on the same show worried about the "anger about a black person being president." The supposed result: "You know we see these hate groups rising up."

And CBS and MSNBC wonder where all their viewers are going. To Fox News.

HT: Mike Costello

U.S. Reps. Mike Simpson and Walt Minnick are calling for a commission to save Social Security and Medicare

From the Idaho Statesman:

U.S. Reps. Mike Simpson and Walt Minnick say health-care reform and the economy have obscured a bigger long-term problem: how to keep Social Security and Medicare solvent.

Simpson, a Republican, and Minnick, a Democrat, told more than 400 people at the Boise City Club on Monday that the solution for both programs is empowering a bipartisan panel to craft a plan and put it to Congress for an up-or-down vote, without amendment.

“It’s going to cost higher taxes, reduced coverage and more stringent eligibility requirements,” Minnick said.

A bipartisan deal is key, Minnick said, because “there’s no way one party can take the political shellacking involved with supporting these proposals unless the other party has bought into it.” “You’re right,” Simpson replied. “That’s the only way to get it done.”

Question: Who Owns Your Body?

Answer: Under ObamaCare, not you.

William Anderson is a retired physician who teaches at Harvard University. He writes the following great article in The Weekly Standard.

We are berated, ad nauseam, with imprecations that America is the only advanced nation that fails to have universal health care. This statement is often followed by the rueful remark that the debate over government controlled health care has been going on without progress for 60 years and, ipso facto, it is time to settle it.

All right, let's do that. Let's look a little deeper. Why is there no settlement of the issue, and why is America unique in its obstinate reluctance to follow the example of our older cultural brothers in Europe?

When a debate continues for decades without resolution, it is prudent to consider the deeper underlying assumptions. Principles which underpin the arguments are likely being ignored and marginalized rather than addressed in a forthright manner.

America is the only advanced country whose founding assumption is popular sovereignty. This is a proposition that stands with hardly a seconding voice throughout the contemporary international community. Yet it is the taproot of American exceptionalism.

Even here, however, the principle of government subordination to the people is by no means universally accepted. It has never been firmly ratified by our political class, those spiritual descendants of Europe's nobility. Our soi-disant elite appear to view with dismay their countrymen's continuing preference for self-rule.

Thus arises the question of corporal ownership. For Americans, the answer has been settled. Since the terrible bloodletting of the Civil War, and now excepting military service, ownership of one's body is a matter between the individual and God, with no intermediation by government.

Yet assertions are now being made that government should have responsibility for, and thus authority over, the maintenance of our bodies. It necessarily follows that government must have the power to approve or withhold care. This concept collides destructively with the founding principles of individual responsibility and autonomy upon which popular sovereignty depends.

This is the reason that the debate never ends. It is also the reason that any resolution of the question will necessarily either confirm or deny the original intent of the Founders.

So let's make up our minds. Does the government, in the last analysis, own your body, or do you? If your answer is the former, be aware that you have opted for veterinary medicine, for you are now accepting the moral status of a domestic animal. If your answer is the latter, you must accept responsibility to make mortal decisions for yourself, and pay for the care that you want with money that you have reason to see as your own.

Such money is not out of reach. Medical savings accounts, amalgamated with catastrophic insurance, could take the place of the ad hoc hodgepodge of plans, schemes, dissimulations, and promises under which we are now burdened and threatened.

And there would be greater efficiency and encouragement of individual choice. We all have an enhanced interest in thriftiness and fair value when we, and not third parties, are the payers.

The wisdom expressed in the Federalist Papers began with the insight that men are not angels. The system that the authors designed placed liberty at the head of other considerations. The Founders were determined that concentrations of power should be confounded.

The system now congealing in Congress for health care is not informed by such principles. Access to the most intimate personal information, direct interaction with bank accounts, and mandated Procrustean protocols remain features of the various schemes under consideration. Such programs would be managed by impenetrable, impersonal, and unaccountable bureaucracies. Do we wish to place such profound coercive powers in the hands of anyone, much less those who now stand expectant and eager to receive them?

The view of human nature recognized by the Founders is now in grave peril. Whither goes America? Was liberty merely an 18th-century fad, or is there still something exceptional about our country?

HT: Dr. A

Minnick Faces a Booing Audience

From the Coeur d’Alene Press:

The question, called in by Press subscriber George Schultz of Hayden, struck a delightful, derisive chord with the audience. Rep. Walt Minnick, who was hosting the forum on health care, said he understood the sentiment but suggested that the federal government actually does a few things well. Many in the crowd didn't want to hear that. They booed. They booed again, loudly, when Rep. Minnick, whom The Washington Post recently deemed the most independent-thinking member of Congress, said he thought everybody in the auditorium should hope that our president is successful, for the good of the nation. At one point during Tuesday night's forum, Minnick was responding to a question when, in mid-sentence, a woman in the front row shouted rudely, "Answer the question!" It's the only time Rep. Minnick directly addressed a verbal assailant, saying that he was answering the question.

Overturning Washington State's "everything but marriage" domestic partnership law

From the Seattle Times:

A referendum that could overturn Washington state's "everything but marriage" domestic partnership law has qualified for the November ballot. The secretary of state's office said Monday that sponsors of Referendum 71 had 121,486 valid petition signatures - enough to put the newly expanded domestic partnership law to a public vote. A secondary check of rejected signatures was not complete, so the number could increase. The new law was supposed to take effect on July 26, but was delayed until the signature count was complete. Now, it won't take effect unless it is approved in the Nov. 3 election.

High School Graduation by Athletic Participation

According to the Wall Street Journal, Texas high school students can now receive additional course credit toward graduation for participation in athletics.

Isn’t that special.

Haughty intrusions into my affairs

A letter to the editor from Donald J. Boudreaux, Chair of the Department of Economics, George Mason University:

Ted Kennedy's canonization is too much.  Every day brings the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority of whom are known only to their families and friends.  These people aren't mourned by politicians, t.v. reporters, or the general public.

Yet almost every one of these unheralded persons has been more productive than has Ted Kennedy - or Chuck Grassley, Nancy Pelosi, the Georges Bush, or any other politician you name, whether he or she be still breathing or buried.

Who installed the windows in my house?  I don't know.  Yet he provided value to me and never forced his hand into my wallet or his nose into my eating habits.  Who will fly the plane that will carry me home tomorrow from Michigan to Virginia?  I have no idea.  Yet that pilot will render unto me (and dozens of others) a valuable service in exchange for funds that I voluntarily paid to his or her employer.  That pilot doesn't force me to fly.  Nor does he or she presume to know better than I do what is best for my family and me.

Who caught the fish that I will eat tonight?  Who trucked it from the sea to my hotel?  Who will cook that fish?  Who designed the dishwasher that cleaned the plate and utensils that I will use?

I know almost none of the millions of people whose daily efforts make possible my life and that of countless other Americans.  These people don't have grand plans for arrogantly re-working society.  They offer only to deal voluntarily with me and with others, never pretending - unlike Mr. Kennedy - to be endowed with a mysterious genius and a saintly inspiration justifying haughty intrusions into my affairs...

White House and CBO: Deficit Nearly $2 Trillion More than Predicted in February

The White House and the CBO announced this week that:

The nation’s fiscal outlook is even bleaker than the government forecast earlier this year because the recession turned out to be deeper than widely expected, the budget offices of the White House and Congress agreed in separate updates on Tuesday.

The Obama administration’s Office of Management and Budget raised its 10-year tally of deficits expected through 2019 to $9.05 trillion, nearly $2 trillion more than it projected in February. That would represent 5.1 percent of the economy’s estimated gross domestic product for the decade, a higher level than is generally considered healthy.

What’s $2 trillion more?

According to the US Debt Clock, the US National Debt is nearly $12 trillion today. That means that the debt per US citizen is $38,194.

I’m sure that’s chump change for the Democrats.

HT: Jeff Miron

Massachusetts House Minority Leader Bradley Jones: "Democrats don’t care about principle. They don’t care about debate. They don’t care about the rules. It really is disgusting.”

I posted about this once before, but it’s really worth posting again.

Here’s a fresh look from Cato-at Liberty:

Lawmakers in the Bay State are rushing to change state law to make sure the late Sen. Edward Kennedy’s seat is filled as soon as possible with a reliable Democratic successor.

Never mind that as recently as 2004 the same state legislature had changed state law to mandate that a vacant Senate seat could only be filled by a special election to be held within five months of the vacancy.

Before then, as in most other states, vacancies were filled by an appointment of the governor, with the seat coming up for a vote at the next federal election. But in 2004, the Democratic legislature changed the law to prevent then-governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, from naming a Republican to replace Democratic Sen. John Kerry if he were to be elected president. Kerry lost to George W. Bush, but the law remained on the books.

That was then; now is now. With Democrats in Washington wanting to maintain their 60-vote caucus in the Senate, a five-month delay to let the people of Massachusetts actually vote on who will replace Kennedy has become an intolerable roadblock to progress. According to a report from Bloomberg News this morning, the Democratically-dominated legislature in Massachusetts is about to change the law back to allow the now-Democratic governor to appoint a successor within a month.

This is a textbook example of how politicians routinely ignore The Rule of Law in pursuit of political aims.

I would love to see a Democrat defend these shenanigans with a straight face.

More on MJ

I had one of my readers email me concerning about my MJ post.

Here’s some more info from Rasmussen Reports:

Pot or not, that is the question.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of American adults say alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 19% disagree and say pot is worse.

But 25% say both are equally dangerous. Just two percent (2%) say neither is dangerous.

Younger adults are more likely than their elders to view alcohol as the more dangerous of the two.

Fifty-three percent (53%) of women say alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana, compared to 48% of men. Men by a two-to-one margin over women say pot is riskier, but women are more inclined to say both are dangerous.

Unmarried adults are more critical of alcohol than those who are married. Those with children at home think alcohol is more dangerous than those without kids living with them.

How to cut the deficit by spending less

Cut the deficit by spending less? Sounds crazy, but it just might work.

From National Review:

Estimates from the Social Security and Medicare trustees and the Congressional Budget Office, academic studies, and other reports suggest that the total federal fiscal imbalance amounts to 8 percent of future U.S. productive capacity. Since only about one-half of the nation’s total income is subject to taxes, Americans would have to immediately and permanently devote another 16 percent of their taxable incomes toward resolving it.

Is this a feasible solution? Probably not. It’s unlikely that Americans are willing to bear the additional tax burden. Also, tax increases tend not to increase government savings; Congress quickly dissipated post–Cold War budget savings through tax cuts and rapid growth in government spending. And higher taxes would significantly erode individuals’ incentives to work and save, start and expand businesses, hire workers, and so on.

If tax increases aren’t the answer, reduced government spending has to be. Of course, this will impose direct costs on the primary beneficiaries of government transfers and other public programs, which is politically unpopular.  

AARP Health Action Now Ambulance Ad - Ration Care

Of course, AARP lost 60,000+ members since Obama said that the AARP supports ObamaCare.

And now the AARP comes out with this.

HT: Tigger

ABC John Stossel Video: Minimum Wage Brings Minimum Jobs

Bjørn Lomborg: the cost of adapting to global warming would be much less than the cost of preventing it.

Bjørn Lomborg (teaches at the Copenhagen Business School and is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center) is a Danish statistician who has made an interesting point: the cost of adapting to global warming would be much cheaper than trying to prevent it.

From the WSJ:

A group of climate economists at the University of Venice led by Carlo Carraro looked closely at how people will adapt to climate change. Their research for the Copenhagen Consensus Center showed that farmers in areas with less water for agriculture could use more drip irrigation, for example, while those with more water will grow more crops.

Taking a variety of natural, so-called market adaptations into account, the Carraro research shows we will acclimatize to the negative impacts of global warming and exploit the positive changes, actually creating 0.1% increase in GDP in 2100 among the member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In poor countries, market adaptation will reduce climate change-related losses to 2.9% of GDP. This remains a significant, negative effect. The real challenge of global warming lies in tackling its impact on the Third World. Yet adaptation has other positive benefits. If we prepare societies for more ferocious hurricanes in the future, we also help them to cope better with today's extreme weather.

Dr. Ouelett on Canada's Medicare: 6-Month Wait for Hip-Replacement Surgery

People were very surprised when I told them our target for hip replacement was six months. They said, "This is your target?" and they couldn't believe that.

Yup. That’s what Obama is shooting for.

If you make the elderly wait 6–months for hip-replacement surgery, they may die first. Think of all the money we’ll save.

Who needs tribunals when you’ve got people waiting to die (pun intended).

Maximum SS Taxes Have Increased 4X Since 1970

Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. 

This is from his site: Carpe Diem

The chart above is based on Social Security Administration data here for maximum taxable Social Security earnings, and here for the tax rates for Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) and Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI), and shows the maximum annual taxes payable from 1937 to 2009. The annual tax amounts have been adjusted for inflation using the CPI data available here, and are shown above in 2009 dollars for the total annual contributions that come from both employees (50% of the total) and employers (50% of total).

Note that since 1970, the maximum taxes paid annually for Social Security and Medicare has more than quadrupled from $4,000 to more than $16,000.

Senate Dems to honor Kennedy by each insuring a poor family

From the Washington Examiner:

As a tribute to the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, whose year-long battle with brain cancer ended Tuesday, Senate Democrats have announced that each of them will purchase a health insurance policy to cover a poor family for the rest of their lives.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said his colleagues would also encourage every American Democrat who earns more than $100,000 per year to do the same. Reid has invited Republicans to emulate the move, and he speculated that "they'll probably cover two families each just to flaunt their wealth."

The gesture comports with Kennedy's lifelong ambition to get health care for every American, as well as his reputation as a lawmaker who could bridge partisan divides to get things done. With today's announcement, the national health care reform debate effectively ended.

"This is a win-win," said Reid. "Not only can we insure most of the uninsured by simply having wealthy Democrats adopt a poor family, but since my paycheck comes from the government, my liberal friends will be glad to know that the taxpayers are subsidizing this program. It's a public option. Sen. Kennedy would be proud."

Nevertheless, resistance to the plan is expected to come from liberal Democrats wary of "anything that smacks of moralistic compassion without legislative compulsion."

"If you let people think that it's up to them to care for their neighbors," the unnamed senator said, "they'll start wondering why that doesn't apply to other activities we currently mandate. It's a slippery slope."

In support of the voluntary program, Senate Democrats could be seen wearing wristbands inscribed with "WWTD" -- an acronym that means "What Would Teddy Do?"  

A Sacred Moral Commitment?

Why does the MSM not complain that the Democrats are mixing church and state when they haul Jesus into the health care debate?

How come the Dems are not charged with trying to establish a theonomic nation?

From the FRC:

Over the weekend former Vice President Al Gore took the stage before a crowd of Democratic Party supporters and alluded to the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 25 when he said the country has a "moral duty to pass health care reform" because we must take care of the "least of us." Evoking Scripture to support congressional passage of federally-run health care has become commonplace in this debate, not just among the Religious Left but among politicians. They trot out Jesus' injunction to care for "the least of these" (which is not an instruction to the civil government but for individuals followers of Christ) to justify the plan to control roughly one-sixth of the American economy.

Earlier this month, the President even went so far as to quote Jewish rabbinic literature in asserting that "We are God's partners in life and death." The media are either complimentary of these remarks or silent about them. Yet when conservative Christians suggest that Scripture upholds the dignity of the person and the sanctity of human life, liberals accuse us of "injecting religion" into a public policy debate. So much for logical integrity!

We agree that steps need to be taken to improve access to health insurance in America, but this can be done without the government taking over health care and expanding taxpayer funded abortion. I am all for appealing to Scripture as our guide in this discussion but any intellectually honest interpretation of Scripture argues that personhood begins at conception. Myriad passages attest to this, from Jeremiah ("Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you") to the Apostle Paul ("God ... set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace").

So, as a Christian organization, we are using Scripture to defend the most vulnerable among us, the unborn and the aged. Of course, our position is buttressed by science, which is replete with evidence that personhood starts at conception, and simple reason (an embryo has the same DNA as an adult: What makes it, therefore, less human or any less valuable, as a person, than you or me?). Apart from Divine revelation, our case stands. Yet we cite the Bible because of who we are - a group of people who believe in the God of the Old and New Testaments.

Congressman Bart Stupak, (D-Mich.), says that when Mr. Obama denies his plan would fund abortion, either he does not understand what's in the Democratic health bill or he deliberately is "misleading" people. And no amount of selective Bible quotations by the President and his allies can change that.

FRC's fidelity to God's Word, to God's most unique creation, human life, and to the "right to life" affirmed in our Declaration of Independence calls us to oppose federally financed abortion and rationed care for the elderly. That's a sacred moral commitment we will never compromise.
 

Stars and Stripes: Lal Mohammad

Lal Mohammad, 40, whose nose and ears were cut
off by the Taliban on the Afghan presidential and
provincial council election day, is seen in a hospital
in Kabul, Afghanistan, Monday, Aug. 31, 2009.
Taliban cut off Lal Mohammad's nose and ears after
finding a voting card with him on his way to a polling
station. Lal Mohammad is from Shiran village of
Daykundi a province in central Afghanistan.

HT: Dave M.

At Least You're Reading it...

Day By Day© by Chris Muir.

Youth Jobless Rate Hits Record July High of 18.5%

From the Bureau of Labor and Statistics:

The youth unemployment rate (the unemployment rate for 16 to 24 year olds) was 18.5% in July 2009, the highest July rate on record for the series, which began in 1948 (see chart above).

Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. 

This is from his site: Carpe Diem

Additionally, the male (19.7%) - female (17.3%) jobless rate gap of 2.4% in July 2009 for youth was the highest male-female gap since 1954 (2.5%), and 1949 (2.8%), see chart below.

 

Bottom Line: Between the economic slowdown and the 24% increase in the minimum wage over the last years, the 16-24 year old group is having a rough summer. And it's especially bad for males in that age group, who are feeling the effects of the "mancession" along with males in other age groups.

$1 Fine for Posession of MJ

From Denver’s 9 News:

A city panel in charge of overseeing marijuana possession crimes in Denver recommended on Wednesday that the fine for possession be set at $1. If Denver's presiding judge accepts the recommendation from the Denver Marijuana Policy Review Panel, the fine would be the lowest in the entire nation for marijuana possession.

"By setting the fine at just $1, we are sending a message to Denver officials that the era of citing adults for using a less harmful drug than alcohol is over. It's simply not worth the city's time or resources," said panel member and SAFER Executive Director Mason Tvert, who coordinated the successful Denver marijuana initiatives.

Great question: how can a more dangerous drug (alcohol) be charged a greater fine than a less dangerous drug?

When was the last time you heard of someone being killed by a “stoned driver” compared to a “drunk driver”?

Sorting Fact From Fiction on Health Care: Current congressional proposals would significantly change your relationship with your doctor

Ashley L. writes:

The reasons why  citizens are rejecting government intervention in larger numbers include: 

1. There is no evidence that government can do anything efficiently-in fact, the evidence is overwhelming that just the opposite occurs;
2. The current administration seems to never get its facts right-and with such  boondoggles (to put it nicely) why would anyone trust them to overhaul the medical care system with a document 1000 pages long that many refuse to read-of course if there was some track record of good results, one might be willing to cut a little slack; and
3. The chickens will come home to roost-that is, the incredible deficits will have to be paid for with higher taxes-maybe it is time to cut our losses.

Here’s an extract in the Wall Street Journal. It’s written by two medical doctors. Dr. Groopman, a staff writer for the New Yorker, and Dr. Hartzband are on the staff of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and on the faculty of Harvard Medical School.

This is just their list of myths. You’ll need to read the entire WSJ article to hear the sources and data the rebuts the Obama Myth Machine.

Consider these myths and mantras of the current debate:

• Americans only receive 55% of recommended care. This would be a frightening statistic, if it were true. It is not. Yet it was presented as fact to the Senate Health and Finance Committees, which are writing reform bills, in March 2009 by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (the federal body that sets priorities to improve the nation's health care).
• We need to implement "best practices." Mr. Obama and his advisers believe in implementing "best practices" that physicians and hospitals should follow. A federal commission would identify these practices.
• No government bureaucrat will come between you and your doctor. The president has repeatedly stated this in town-hall meetings. But his proposal to provide financial incentives to "allow doctors to do the right thing" could undermine this promise. If doctors and hospitals are rewarded for complying with government mandated treatment measures or penalized if they do not comply, clearly federal bureaucrats are directing health decisions.

Again, check out the WSJ article to see sources and data that rebuts the myths and mantras.

Ted Kennedy: Why do you want to be President?

One of many things that kept him out of the White House.

Too bad he didn’t answer honestly: “because I’m a Kennedy”.

President by birthright.  

If Teddy Drove a Volkswagen

Town considers chicken crackdown

We really are living in different times when you cannot have chickens and roosters at all within the city limits.

From the Associated Press:

The [Hoquiam, Wash] city council has proposed a new ordinance limiting domestic fowl of any kind to four hens within the city limits and adding a $20 annual licensing fee per home. No roosters would be allowed and all other pet requirements would still apply.

The council's Public Safety Committee recommended the new ordinance earlier this summer, citing complaints about public nuisance and health concerns.

Chairman Paul McMillan said neighbors should not have to smell chickens next door or wake up at 3 a.m. to the shrill crow of the rooster down the street. Other members pointed to city regulations already limiting the number of dogs or cats allowed in a household.

Chicken owners say the birds offer organic eggs, low-impact pest control and some companionship. According to the Hoquiam Police Department, as many as nine households raise chickens within the city limits.

Rammell's comment is a disgrace

The following letter to the editor appeared in today’s Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

At a Republican rally in Twin Falls, Rex Rammell, Idaho gubernatorial candidate, joined a discussion about the $11.50 wolf tag required to hunt wolves in Idaho. When a person in the audience asked about "Obama tags," Rammell responded: "The Obama tags? We'd buy some of those." Rammell told the Associated Press that he has nothing to apologize for - it was all a joke.

Rammell's comment is a disgrace. Whether he agrees or disagrees with the president, Rammell owes the office of the presidency due respect.

An apology would be the honorable thing to do; an indication of character. But Rammell shouldn't apologize. Honor, civility, decency are qualities that are antithetical to Idaho Republican politics. Rammell's boorish incivility distinguishes him as an ideal Republican candidate for Idaho governor.

Mark Mumford , Moscow

I looked and looked, but I couldn’t find any call by Mumford in 2004 for apologies for the “Cheney should take Bush hunting” comments from the Dems.

Why the double standard, Mark?

‘Kennedy’ once meant ‘tax cutter’

Not our parents’ Democratic Party.

From the Boston Globe:

His name was Kennedy. He was the preeminent figure in the Democratic Party. And he was a resolute supply-side tax-cutter.

“It is a paradoxical truth,’’ he once told the Economic Club of New York, “that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.’’ What he had in mind, he said, was “an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes.’’

Those were not the words of Senator Edward Kennedy. The speaker - in December 1962 - was President John F. Kennedy (see video above), and his ringing call for tax cuts was no anomaly.

Four months earlier, JFK had called high tax rates a danger to “the very essence of the progress of a free society.’’ In his 1963 State of the Union message, his first priority was “the enactment this year of a substantial reduction and revision in federal income taxes.’’ In the speech he was scheduled to deliver on Nov. 22, 1963, Kennedy planned to report proudly: “We have proposed a massive tax reduction, with particular benefits for small business.’’

In recent days, Ted Kennedy has been justly acclaimed as a lion of the Democratic Party. But how different the party mourning Kennedy today is from the one that nominated him in 1962.

HT: Mark J. Perry

Remembering Teddy

Via 4–Block World