William A. Manning

What they have found is that ObamaScare style healthcare does not work and they need to turn the healthcare back over to the doctors. One of the many problems is the absurd amount of money any federal government takes to get anything done. A centralized or ObamaScare style of healthcare is just to costly. It took the UK over 60 years to come to this conclusion that it does not work, but the ObamaScare supporters that used the NHS as the "model" aren't listening right now.

Britain Plans to Decentralize National Health Care

LONDON — Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate.

Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.

The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government’s goal to effect $30 billion in “efficiency savings” in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished.

 Damn, "tens of thousands" of bureaucrats looking for a job in the private sector. I wonder what one program would do that here in the US? I nominate the IRS. No the EPA. IRS. EPA. Hey, you wanna flip a quarter?

In a document, or white paper, outlining the plan, the government admitted that the changes would “cause significant disruption and loss of jobs.” But it said: “The current architecture of the health system has developed piecemeal, involves duplication and is unwieldy. Liberating the N.H.S., and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management.”

The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, also promised to put more power in the hands of patients. Currently, how and where patients are treated, and by whom, is largely determined by decisions made by 150 entities known as primary care trusts — all of which would be abolished under the plan, with some of those choices going to patients. It would also abolish many current government-set targets, like limits on how long patients have to wait for treatment.

Many critics say that the plans are far too ambitious, particularly in the short period of time allotted, and they doubt that general practitioners are the right people to decide how the health care budget should be spent. Currently, the 150 primary care trusts make most of those decisions. Under the proposals, general practitioners would band together in regional consortia to buy services from hospitals and other providers.

 Damned "intellectuals". I wonder how long these critics practiced medicine.

Me thinks that people that want a nationalized health care system need to wake up as to what the government can do efficiently and economically.

Post office?

So, how's that working out for us?

North Korea Vows 'Nuclear' Response to US Drills

North Korea threatened today to use its "nuclear deterrent" in a "retaliatory sacred war" against military drills by the U.S. and South Korea, set to kick off this weekend in retaliation for Pyongyang's alleged role in the suspicious sinking of a South Korean warship.

Well, North Korea likes to rattle their (nuclear) sabers, but then what do you expect from a thuggish country?

Maybe Ahmadinejad is willing to accept Obama's sign of friendship?

Iran says it has 100 vessels for each US warship

TEHRAN, Iran – The former naval chief for Iran's Revolutionary Guard said the country has set aside 100 military vessels to confront each warship from the U.S. or any other foreign power that might pose a threat, an Iranian newspaper reported Saturday.

Such a military confrontation in the vital oil lanes of the Persian Gulf would be of major global concern. The warning builds on earlier threats by Iran to seal off the Gulf's strategic Strait of Hormuz — through which 40 percent of the world's oil passes — in response to any military attack.

"We have set aside 100 military vessels for each (U.S.) warship to attack at the time of necessity," Gen. Morteza Saffari was quoted as saying by the conservative weekly Panjereh. The U.S. and Israel have said military force could be used if diplomacy fails to stop what they suspect is an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Iran denies any aim to develop such weapons and says its nuclear work is for peaceful purposes like power generation.

The U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet headquarters is based just across the Gulf from Iran in Bahrain. Saffari said more than 100 foreign warships were currently in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman, adding that their sailors were "morsels" for Iran's military to target, the newspaper reported.

"Morsels" doesn't suggest a tone of endearment to me, how about you?

The leaders in countries such as North Korea and Iran know only one thing and that is to respect strength, not diplomacy. Right now, under the Obama administration, these countries know we are weak because of our Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan and the "civil unrest" over the legislation passing through Congress.

Other contentious situations that these countries are looking at, is the Obama administrations response to the growing threat of gang violence at our border with Mexico and our own Federal government suing one of its own state's over immigration control. Not to mention foreign countries such as Mexico are also suing Arizona for the same reason.

7 Latin American Nations Join Mexico In Lawsuit Against Arizona Immigration Law

PHOENIX — Seven other Latin American countries want to join Mexico in supporting a lawsuit challenging Arizona's immigration enforcement law. Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru filed separate, nearly identical motions to join Mexico's legal brief supporting the lawsuit filed by U.S. civil rights and other advocacy groups. A federal judge formally accepted Mexico's filing July 1 but did not immediately rule on the latest motions filed late last week. Mexico says the law would lead to racial profiling and hinder trade, tourism and the fight against drug trafficking.

Now, I wonder how those 7 countries deal with illegal immigration?

Take a second and listen to these soldiers about the conditions in Afghanistan. For your nest debate about the "Rules of Engagement" with your liberal "friend", just reference this video.

I wonder if Mr Holder gives a damn about whats happening in Texas? Maybe he's too busy suing Arizona to have even noticed.

Open borders or amnesty types of immigration reform will bring this type of violence to our cities.



MEXICAN GUN BATTLES SHUT DOWN CITY NEAR LAREDO, TEXAS

Several intersections in the City of Nuevo Laredo, Mexico were shut down as gun battles erupted between the Mexican military and heavily armed “hit men” from a Mexican drug cartel. The gunfire could be heard across the U.S. border in Laredo, Texas leading citizens there to call 911.

Oh wait, the violence is already here.

MULTIPLE RANCHES IN LAREDO, TX TAKEN OVER BY LOS ZETAS

The bloodbath continues along our southern border and now word is coming in that Los Zetas, the highly trained killers formerly with the Gulf Cartel, have crossed into the United States and taken over at least two ranches in the Laredo, Texas area.

Well, Im glad these are just small gangs.

Zetas Plan to Make Nuevo Laredo Their Base of Operations.

Sources say that the Zetas are already calling in reinforcements. We're told 700 Zetas from around Mexico are joining the 500 already brought to the area last week.

 Ok, lemme do some quick math. (carry the 1) That comes to 1200 gang members? Whew, I guess its a bigger gang and a bigger problem than most people think.



I dont think that these are the jobs that Americans wont do.

For you folks that voted for Obama, you sure do love your kids.

Some insurers stop writing new coverage for kids

WASHINGTON — Some major health insurance companies have stopped issuing certain types of policies for children, an unintended consequence of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law, state officials said Friday.

Ah the sweet "road of good intentions" strikes again.

Starting later this year, the health care overhaul law requires insurers to accept children regardless of medical problems. Insurers are worried that parents will wait until kids get sick to sign them up, saddling the companies with unpredictable costs.

If you think the insurance companies are wrong, then you better do some research into Tennessee and Massachusetts healthcare.

The major types of coverage for children — employer plans and government programs — are not be affected by the disruption. But a subset of policies — those that cover children as individuals — may run into problems. Even so, insurers are not canceling children's coverage already issued, but refusing to write new policies.

 I really hope you like your kids on government healthcare, because thats the only insurance they will get.

State officials have also brought the problem to the attention of the Obama administration. "We are attempting to convince (federal officials) that this is a serious enough concern to work with (insurers) to give them some relief," Holland said.

There was no immediate response from the administration. Final regulations for the new children's coverage are due before Sept. 23. The requirement to cover kids regardless of their medical problems will apply to new plans starting after that date.

 Yep, we are definitely on the road to socialized healthcare. The democrats have said that this bill "will get us to single payer" and they were right.

I warned folks that this bill would lead to single payer because insurance companies would change the way they do business or close their doors.

Here's another warning, any "fix" from the government will be blamed on the insurance companies, again. The "fix" regulations on insurance companies will be the nail through the coffin and everyone will be dependent on the government for healthcare.

Whats that? You didn't know? Well, you should have paid a little more attention to the people in DC and less time watching "America's Surviving the Stars Dancing with a Bachelor".

What is the DISCLOSE Act, S. 3628?

A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes.

DISCLOSE is short for “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections.”

Excuse me, but we live in a republic. Democracy is mob rule.

Schumer to push new campaign law

Sen. Charles Schumer has introduced a new version of a controversial campaign-finance reform bill opposed by Republicans and special-interest groups — changes he hopes will give Democrats enough votes to break a filibuster when the bill comes up for a vote Tuesday. 

Schumer, chairman of the Rules and Administration Committee – which has jurisdiction over campaign-finance issues – dropped the new bill Wednesday night. By late Thursday evening, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) filed cloture on the legislation and announced that the Senate will vote on the motion to open debate on the bill Tuesday afternoon.

A one day debate on freedom of speech? And some of you folk wonder why the country in the shape its in.

The Democratic proposal is a response to the Supreme Court's January ruling in the Citizens United case, which struck down decades of campaign-finance laws that had barred corporations and labor unions from running TV ads advocating the defeat or election of federal candidates in the closing months of a campaign.

You might not agree, but if a company or group of companies see a politician or legislation that may hurt economic growth, then I think businesses should have every right to say something.

The Supreme Court has said such “independent spending” poses no threat of corruption and thus cannot be prohibited. How can I corrupt you if I don’t give you anything of value?

I could be wrong, but some corporations already eschew the legislative process in their favor through the use of lobbyists – often in political deals that come at the expense of their competitors and the public at large. But I guess democrats can't let the back room deals get away from them. Damn, all that power to manipulate just up in smoke.

Which politicians will feel the pain if this bill isn't passed? Oh, the incompetents, er I meant incumbents.

Ah well. At least we have newspapers, talk radio, and cable news to sort these complicated matters for us. People just like MSNBC's Chris "tingling leg" Matthews, who is completely unbiased. Or on the side, Rush Limbaugh.

Liberals only like freedom of speech when opposing voices are silent.

I've heard a few arguments as to why the Supreme Court justice should have term limits and I disagree with these misguided folk on every occasion.

Why?

Well, the writers of the Constitution understood that Supreme Court justices could decide cases and constitutionality of laws if they could do so without fear of losing their place on the bench. Not only that, decisions were to be based solely on law and not that of public opinion.

If you look at the Federalist Paper #78 you will note Alexander Hamilton thought that the judiciary branch was the weaker of the three branches of government:

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

When you look at this matter in a different light, if after the President has nominated a justice and that justice has been approved by Congress, and that justice makes a ruling that a law or action is unconstitutional, that justices doesn't have to fear retribution from the other two branches.

If you have a President that knows they can replace a judge at any given time, those judges will be more likely to be swayed to rule in favor of an unconstitutional action. If you have a Congress that knows it can either bribe or punish judges in financial terms, then judges could be swayed to find in favor of unconstitutional laws.

This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.

Judges are to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of an oppressive government and the swings of public opinion.

Though I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies, in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body.

The Constitution in our republican government informs the people that they can change or abolish the Constitution whenever the people find that the Constitution conflicts with the majority's idea of happiness. It also states that temporary swings in public opinion shouldn't alter a justice's judgement on constitutionality.

Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.

The citizens, through Congress, have to come to an agreement before the Constitution can be annulled or amended. Congress can't do this without informing the public at large.

But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community.

Judges need a strong sense of duty to guard the Constitution so that Congress may not infringe upon the rights of the very people that elected them.

This was the second attempt at a YouTube video. The first attempt is the same John Wayne poem but with less images.

Left wing kook is actually going after Obama's administration? Not really, he's trying to silence his opposition.


I couldn't help but notice that he said that he "busted my ass for Obama" and "Obama went on Bret Baier on my time slot."

Maybe, ol' Ed will come to the realization that he's nothing more than a "useful idiot". If you don't know what a "useful idiot" is, then follow one of the links.

Watch as Rush Limbaugh lets his feelings known towards "intellectual" Republicans and the infighting they're causing.

Lets go back in time. While the ObamaScare debate was still going on. You know, waaaaay back in September of last year?



Barrack Obama objected to the notion that the penalty was a tax then, but what about now?

Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

WASHINGTON — When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

Ok, let me get this straight. To hype the public to buy into ObamaScare, everyone that promoted it swore up and down that the penalty wasn't a tax, but to enforce this bill, the penalty is now a tax?

Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.

In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

So, Congress had effectively given up a piece of their power, to represent the citizens, over to the IRS in an effort to regulate commerce. Hmmm, when can we start electing IRS agents?

Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nation’s economy. Nowhere does Congress cite its taxing power as a source of authority.

Under the Constitution, Congress can exercise its taxing power to provide for the “general welfare.” It is for Congress, not courts, to decide which taxes are “conducive to the general welfare,” the Supreme Court said 73 years ago in upholding the Social Security Act.

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, described the tax power as an alternative source of authority.

“The Commerce Clause supplies sufficient authority for the shared-responsibility requirements in the new health reform law,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “To the extent that there is any question of additional authority — and we don’t believe there is — it would be available through the General Welfare Clause.”

The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a “penalty” rather than a tax. The Justice Department brushes aside the distinction, saying “the statutory label” does not matter. The constitutionality of a tax law depends on “its practical operation,” not the precise form of words used to describe it, the department says, citing a long line of Supreme Court cases.

Moreover, the department says the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

In addition, the department notes, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.”

Because the penalty is a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.

Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, “The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding” the individual-coverage requirement.

Mr. Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax. Because it’s a tax, it’s completely constitutional.”

Mr. Balkin and other law professors pressed that argument in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in one of the pending cases.

Opponents contend that the “minimum coverage provision” is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power to regulate commerce.

“This is the first time that Congress has ever ordered Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.

In their lawsuit, Florida and other states say: “Congress is attempting to regulate and penalize Americans for choosing not to engage in economic activity. If Congress can do this much, there will be virtually no sphere of private decision-making beyond the reach of federal power.”

In reply, the administration and its allies say that a person who goes without insurance is simply choosing to pay for health care out of pocket at a later date. In the aggregate, they say, these decisions have a substantial effect on the interstate market for health care and health insurance.

In its legal briefs, the Obama administration points to a famous New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court upheld a penalty imposed on an Ohio farmer who had grown a small amount of wheat, in excess of his production quota, purely for his own use.

The wheat grown by Roscoe Filburn “may be trivial by itself,” the court said, but when combined with the output of other small farmers, it significantly affected interstate commerce and could therefore be regulated by the government as part of a broad scheme regulating interstate commerce.

And some of you folks wonder why I support the FairTax, limited government, and the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

Oh, can I get some strawberries out of the White House garden using the General Welfare Clause?

One last thing. I tried to warn ya, but "Me sooo crazyyyyy".

Let the back peddling begin!

If you do a Google search for "CNA rally violence" you get hits from both sides of the political spectrum.

Oh the left has this title running through the Twitter universe:

Right Wing Bully Shoves, Harasses Man at CNA Union Rally

The rights has this title running through the blogosphere:

Union Goon Assaulting Videographer at CNA Rally in California

Now, here's the video from YouTube:


Now, who struck who first and which side was the aggressor?

This isn't unusual for the CNA. As a matter of fact CNA and SEIU have had their spats in the past too.

CNA, SEIU come to blows in Michigan

SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION (SEIU) ATTACKS LABOR GATHERING— CONFERENCE-GOERS ASSAULTED 

What's Really at Stake with this CNA/SEIU Controversy

I'm going to take a guess, but I think this shows how some unions "take care" of the opposition.

My main source of information comes from the internet, so I have to be careful when I read some of the headlines. Especially when it comes to Obama.

President Barack Obama and family hike, swim and eat ice cream on vacation, GOP not pleased

One ice cream store even created flavor especially for the president's visit - The Commander in Chief Chip - a red, white, and blue ice cream with chocolate chips.

Really? Republicans aren't pleased with ice cream? Damn, those folks are cold hearted.

Pertaining to where you get your news from, this is either Obamas 7th or 8th vacation. To be honest, I don't care, I encourage it.  Hell, I would even volunteer to help him pack!

Why? To put it simply, Barrack Obama does less damage to the country, the more time he's away from the White House.

What I do care about is the hypocrisy.



Hmm, why didn't the Obamas go to one of the Gulf states for vacation?  Ah well, some people have come to expect the "Do as I say, not as I do" from the first family.

Feds to Monitor Obesity as White House Promotes Obama Cook to Senior Position

Isn't ice cream "junk food"? If I touch a nerve with the following, I don't care. The kids? Gasp! They ate ice cream too? I shouldn't feed my kids junk food, while the Obamas children get to eat ice cream? I wonder how Michelle Obama is going to get those excess calories off those, already self conscious, girls.

Oh, I love the ice cream shop's sign.

"Kill 'Nilla Wafers"?

Really? The dog flew in a separate plane?

White House wanderers tour Acadia

Arriving in a small jet before the Obamas was the first dog, Bo, a Portuguese water dog given as a present by the late U.S. Sen Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.; and the president's personal aide Reggie Love, who chatted with Baldacci.

 Oh, ok. The president's personal aide was on the plane too. That makes sense, if there wasn't enough room on the first G3 Gulfstream.

GIII Gulfstream fact:

Seating: 12 to 15

For a dog, Bo has a huge carbon paw, er, footprint.

Since I'm talking about Bo, I'm beginning to think the dog is nothing more than a political backdrop instead of a "family member".


Well, I hope you folks enjoyed your weekend, I know the Obama's did alot of "sacrificing" to enjoy theirs.

Jobless in Cuba? Communism faces the unthinkable

HAVANA — At a state project to refurbish a decaying building in Old Havana, one worker paints a wall white while two others watch. A fourth sleeps in a wheelbarrow positioned in a sliver of shade nearby and two more smoke and chat on the curb.

Ah, the sweet site of government employees being productive in a way that only a government employee can achieve.

President Raul Castro has startled the nation lately by saying about one in five Cuban workers may be redundant. At the work site on Obispo street, those numbers run in reverse.

It's a common sight in communist Cuba. Here, nearly everyone works for the state and official unemployment is minuscule, but pay is so low that Cubans like to joke that "the state pretends to pay us and we pretend to work".

"We know that there are hundreds of thousands of unnecessary workers on the budget and labor books, and some analysts calculate that the excess of jobs has surpassed 1 million," said Castro, who replaced his ailing brother Fidel as president nearly four years ago. Cuba's work force totals 5.1 million, in a population of 11.2 million.

"Without people feeling the need to work to make a living, sheltered by state regulations that are excessively paternalistic and irrational, we will never stimulate a love for work," he said.

What? People that have grown accustomed to being payed for minimal work don't have a work ethic? Really? Well, color me shocked!!

With the government giving no details of its thinking, rumors have spread that as many as a fourth of all government workers in some industries could lose their jobs or be moved to farming or construction. But Labor Minister Margarita Gonzalez has promised that "Cuba will not employ massive firings in a manner similar to neoliberal cutbacks."

The government has moved to embrace some small free-market reforms. It handed some barbershops over to employees, allowing them to set their own prices but making them pay rent and buy their own supplies. Authorities have also approved more licenses for private taxis while getting tough on unlicensed ones.

While central planning and socialism is taking hold of our economy, the communists are experimenting with capitalistic ideas? Isn't the same phenomenon happening with the healthcare systems in Europe? Only an idiot will still say that socialism is the only cure for our economic ails and these same idiots will try to have you believe that social justice is actually justice for all.

Cuba slashed spending on importing food and other basics by 34 percent to $9.6 billion in 2009, from $12.7 billion the previous year. But so far, the moves have not been enough to rein in the deficit.

Carmelo Mesa-Lago, a Cuba economics expert and professor emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, said Cuban officials have spent months debating cuts in the labor force and economic reforms. He said they know what's needed, but face "a problem of political viability."

The problem that they face is communism for extended periods leads to failed economies and countries.

But low pay means low productivity. On Obispo street, a state-run cafeteria sells heavily subsidized soft ice cream and pork sandwiches for the equivalent of a few American pennies — meaning wages and tips are so tiny that the staff is complete indifferent toward customers.

The state employs 95 percent of the official work force. Unemployment last year was 1.7 percent and hasn't risen above 3 percent in eight years — but that ignores thousands of Cubans who aren't looking for jobs that pay monthly salaries worth only $20 a month on average.

Salvador Valdes Mesa, secretary-general of the nearly 3 million-strong Cuban Workers Confederation — the only Cuban labor union allowed — has instead written that "reorganization" will ensure redundant workers are reassigned rather than fired. 

He said the government wants more jobs in construction and agriculture. 

You can only build so much before you are tearing down the same new buildings to start over, just to say that people are employed. Cubans that haven't seen the idiocy of communism will definitely see it if this happens.

Still, 35-year-old computer engineer Norberto fears for his job. He thinks it's unfair to keep workers under communist domination and yet call them unmotivated. "I didn't graduate from college to now work as a day laborer or a peasant, he said. 

For those folks that love the fact that the Cuban government pays for a college education, remember that the Cuban government can also tell you where you can work. How would you like to receive an Associates Degree to be a computer engineer and have the government tell you that you have to be a trash collector?

If he loses his job and gets an offer to work abroad, he said, "my question is 'Will the Cuban authorities put aside their paternalism and let me leave?'"

 Unlike where you work, this man doesn't have the choice of quitting his job and moving. He is stuck in a failed communist country with little recourse.

EPA, UN fuel regulations likely will drive up prices for Alaska

Starting this month, the EPA will require all marine transport vessels and cruise ships traveling within 200 miles of land to begin lowering the sulfur content of their fuel. The 200-mile boundary — encompassing virtually the entire Tacoma-Anchorage shipping route — applies to both the U.S. and Canadian coastlines because of an amendment to a United Nations treaty proposed by the two nations last year.

This is a prime example of why the US shouldn't be bound to an international treaty concerning the environment.

The EPA regulations are designed to reduce emissions of sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. Sulfur oxide is produced from burning fuel; nitrogen oxide is produced through the internal combustion process. The EPA claims the switch to low sulfur fuels will eventually save 33,000 lives per year based on improved air quality in coastal areas.

Ask yourself, how did the EPA calculate the 33,000 lives. I would like to see the research.

Based on today's prices, shipping companies face a 20 percent to 25 percent increase in fuel costs by July 2012. Michael Bohlman, director of marine operations for Horizon, said switching to 1 percent sulfur diesel would add $50 per ton compared to current prices for industrial fuel oil.

Would you like to see a 20-25% decrease in your paycheck?

By 2015, not counting price increases from supply forces or inflation, fuel costs could double for the ultra-low, 0.1 percent sulfur diesel, according to Richard Berkowitz, director of Pacific Coast operations for the Transport Institute, a trade association of U.S. flagged vessels.

Millions of dollars more may be needed to retrofit engines to meet nitrogen oxide standards or to install separate fuel storage to switch between industrial fuel and diesel.

According to Totem's director of marketing Peter Lindsey, cost of compliance will increase freight costs between 5 percent and 7 percent in 2012. By 2015, it will increase freight costs between 12 percent and 15 percent.

"Those costs will be passed on to the consumer," Berkowitz said. "When you double the cost of fuel, that is not insignificant."

If you aren't sure who the consumer is, that's you.

"There is a price point where more cargo would go up through the highway," Berkowitz said. "That means greater congestion, more emissions per ton-mile, more runoff. (Emissions are) four-fold less on a vessel per ton of cargo moved."

So what is going to happen is the "pollution" that is off the coast will be transfered to the highways? Ah, the EPA and their infinite wisdom. The price of consumer goods rises and the highways get congested.

Yaaay for "saving the Earth"!

Coal-fired power plants in 31 states may soon face a new set of regulations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently proposed a plan to cut pollution said to impair air quality and harm the health of people living downwind.

“We’re working to limit pollution at its source, rather than waiting for it to move across the country. The reductions we’re proposing will save billions in health costs, help increase American educational and economic productivity, and—most importantly—save lives,” she said.

The Transport Rule promises to create health benefits for millions of Americans and is projected to prevent between 14,000 and 36,000 premature deaths annually, based on an EPA analysis.

Agency estimates suggest the plan could cost as much as $2.8 billion in 2014, but the agency argues that the resulting health care savings will far outweigh the cost of the new regulations.

 $2.8 Billion? I wonder how these companies are going to raise that amount? Hmm, lets think a moment. Well, they could increase your light bill or the government could give them subsidies.

Government subsidies? Who pays those? Oh, thats you and I, right?

Stiffer antipollution rules might hasten the retirement of several coal-fired electric power plants operated by Duke Energy Corp. in Ohio and Indiana. 

Beckjord Station in New Richmond and one of three generating units at Miami Fort Station in North Bend are among Duke’s older plants that are probably not viable candidates for expensive retrofits to reduce emissions, according to company officials. Duke officials said the number of employees at those plants is proprietary.

Whats that? Employees might be effected? I'll wager that they wont be getting raises. Double or nothing says they'll more likely be laid off.

Mike Miller, director of environmental R&D at the Electric Power Research Institute, said the EPA typically gives utilities two or three years to come into compliance. Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association, said Wall Street analysts have projected that as much as 30 percent of the country’s coal-fired electric generation could be shut down as a result by 2015. Utilities also will be looking at several other pending regulations to assess bringing older plants into compliance, Miller said.

 Coal power plants provide almost half of all the electricity in the U.S. and the EPA regulations are going to knock that down by a third in a matter of 5 years? How are we going to replace those losses? Nuclear plants? Doubt it, because we are going "Green" baby! I really don't want to see my electric bill in 2016. You don't need to worry, thats six years away.

EPA has fined Summit Builders Construction Co., based in Maricopa County, Arizona, $105,610 for allegedly failing to comply with Clean Air Act regulations. In addition to the monetary fine, Summit also is required to take steps to minimize the generation of dust at its construction sites.

In 2006 and 2007, the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAD) inspected five commercial construction projects in Maricopa County and uncovered eight violations for failing to perform various measures required to reduce particulate matter emissions. These included failure to install a trackout control device to remove particulate matter from vehicles; failure to immediately clean up dirt that is tracked more than 50 feet beyond the site; failure to operate a water application system during earthmoving operations; and failure to comply with the dust control plan.

Hey there young fella, ya better wipe your feet before you get in your truck and go home.

Maricopa County exceeds the national health standard for particulate matter, PM-10 (one-seventh the width of a human hair), and has been classified by the EPA as a serious non-attainment area. In May 2010, EPA denied Arizona’s claim that dust storms caused the high pollution readings in Phoenix. Because of this, Arizona must submit an adequate plan to EPA on how the state plans to come into attainment for PM-10. Failure to do so will result in a freeze to the state’s federal transportation funds.

 I have a great idea! How about we put 200 of these EPA agents in a freaking dust storm and let them figure out how the dust storms don't cause "pollution".

The aviation gas that powers most of the Kodiak's aircraft is receiving scrutiny this summer in Washington for its lead content.

“While we absolutely concur that we don't want to put pollutants in the air, we need to fly, we need to deliver groceries,” said Joy Journeay, executive director. “Often when regulations are put out they deal with a specific problem, not the whole issue.”

A transition to turbine-engine planes like those used by Era Aviation is another option.

“The problem with turbines is they've never gone down in prices,” he said. “There are too many regulations on them.”

In Alaska — which has 16 times more planes per capita than the rest of the country — aviation gasoline accounts for 3.38 percent of motor fuel consumption.

Jet fuel accounts for 8.73 percent of fuel use nationwide and 36.97 percent in Alaska. 

In the effort to clean the air in Alaska, the residents of Alaska will have to face higher food costs due to EPA regulations, not to mention the cost for "cure" will outweigh the the benefits due to more EPA regulations. There is simply no common sense in the EPA bureaucracy is there?

The latest outrage: The FCC just published a new rule that outlaws all existing Emergency Locator Transmitters by Aug. 1 of this year! The companies that make these things could not even make a quarter of the number of the 400K required replacements before the deadline! Crazy ... if the FCC has it their way in a month 80 percent or more of all our nation's planes would be grounded. Who dreams up such nightmare rules? How can something so out of touch with reality become a law?

Ah damn. The omnipotent wisdom of the EPA didn't foresee this? Imagine that.

The last big federal aviation law fiasco, the "oxygen-bottle-transportation-ban" may have actually killed people in the Bush simply because the ones who dreamed it up failed to create an Alaska exemption, since they couldn't imagine the existence of commercial planes smaller than 50 seats or the existence of villages without access to the road system.

Hard to imagine that well-paid "professionals" with the power to create laws can be uninformed and unaware to that extent.

It used to be "hard to imagine" but today we are guided by incompetent intellectuals.

Now we are facing a very near future where the price of transportation in the Bush will multiple by six, or where the service will not even be available. Bear with me on the complicated technicalities that make up the issue.

Airplane engines are VERY different than car engines (more on THAT LATER) and the current production engines with enough power to be commercially viable (180 HP or more) need at least the 2ppm lead in the fuel to keep running for more than a few hours (more on THAT also later). Research on lead-free fuels for these very reliable and powerful engines is going on for over 20 years. An Coordinating Research Council (CRC) Unleaded AVGAS Development Panel in charge of the testing of these proposed alternative fuels has so far tested 279 of them, and their boss said to me "not even one was even close."

It's unreasonable to claim the damage of banning 100LL is justified when all it's going to get us is a somewhat more lead-free environment. Mind you, China and Russia and Poland ... they don't worry about this at ALL. How many more jobs is this society willing to sacrifice for questionable environmental reasoning?

Many privately owned planes have low-powered engines of 150 HP or less that could mix unleaded premium car fuel into the 100LL with 2:1 ratio if the fuel contains NO ALCOHOL! But alcohol is extremely dangerous in aircraft and any car fuel that has any of it in it can't be used for planes (unless they would be designed to run on pure alcohol, which would only work in the tropics). The Big Problem is: The EPA MANDATES that alcohol is put into the car fuel. If premium auto gas would be kept out of that mandate and be alcohol free, most private planes could happily supplement their lead-100LL diet with unleaded car fuel and therefore much less 100LL would be used.

The banning of leaded aviation gas isn't addressing a real danger to the environment; it's just an empty political statement. To me it's a symbol of what's wrong with the country. Instead of focusing on real problems, a tiny minority gets singled out as guilty and the real problems don't get addressed. And an easy way out of most of it is being ignored by the EPA. We need real jobs, and general aviation provides these, while supporting the whole country's economy logistically behind the scenes. EPA needs to ban alcohol in premium gas, not lead in 100LL.

 The people running the EPA either suffers from severe myopia or a mad case of  "Headupassitis".

BUCYRUS -- The employee in charge of overseeing the county wastewater treatment plants is not properly classified to run the operation, according to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.

Tim Marcum, of New Washington, oversees county plants in Morton Subdivision, Linlare and Sugar Grove. He has a Class A license, a lower rating than the Class 1 license the Ohio EPA contends he needs.

County Engineer Cecil Newcome and Marcum argue a Class 1 license is not necessary.

"We don't agree, because the criteria that we're hanging our hats on is that the plants are designed for less than 25,000 gallons a day," Newcome said.

According to Newcome, plants that run less than 25,000 gallons a day need only a Class A licensed supervisor under Ohio regulations.

"A normal daily flow might be 10,000 gallons or less," Marcum said. "During high rainfall and peak runoffs, it will exceed 25,000 gallons. Not an average, once in a while."

"For the year, we're way below the average."

Newcome said he received a letter from the Ohio EPA June 29 saying the county had 30 days to put a Class 1 operator in place.

Marcum said he is taking his Class 1 operator's test, but won't be classified until November.

"We basically have two options here. Option one is contracting with a licensed operator, or one that has the right certification, or the other option is knowing that he is going after his Class 1 license" Miller said.

Newcome said Marcum has done an excellent job of overseeing the plants, and bringing in a Class 1 operator would not benefit a county already strapped financially.

"My feeling is, no matter what kind of an operator you get out there it's not going to change the operations of the plant. Tim is operating the plants as well as a Class 1 operator would," Newcome said.

 The EPA knows whats best for a community that knows its own water usage. The towns own engineers have stated that the gentleman running the water plants knows whats he's doing. But then, a single piece of paper has a better sense of judgement in these matters than a human being.

WASHINGTON — Imagine treating milk the same as the toxic sludge now washing up on Gulf Coast beaches.

The EPA program in question falls under the Clean Water Act and requires owners of large oil storage tanks to develop plans to prevent and handle any spills.

Milk contains a certain percentage of animal fat, which is considered a non-petroleum oil, and therefore bulk milk storage tanks near waterways could be subject to the regulations.

The milk-and-oil issue is another chapter in the long-standing tension between the EPA and the farm sector, which feels it often gets caught up unfairly in environmental regulations.

The World-Herald requested an interview with EPA officials about the situation, but the agency provided only a brief statement indicating that it expects to extend the date by which milk storage tanks would have to comply with the rules until after a final determination is made on the exemption.

Marty Schwager, national policy adviser for the Iowa Farm Bureau, said that treating milk the same as oil is simply illogical — and that the group hopes EPA gives final approval to the exemption.

 Most people agree that using broad brush strokes to clean the environment actually has the unintended consequence of putting extra stress on sectors of the economy that has minimal impact on it.

BOLIVIA, N.C. -- To hear Tom Garigen and Jeff Brown talk about a new, proposed EPA rule that would cover mosquito control chemicals for the first time, you'd think they were talking about two different things.

Garigen, director of Horry County's stormwater department, said he doesn't see any problem complying with the proposal. The county will buy computer equipment for its spray trucks that will document the exact location and volume of the chemical spray.

Brown, mosquito biologist with Brunswick County's mosquito control program, said he estimates that if the new rules are adopted unaltered, they would quadruple the county's cost to spray for mosquitoes and may end the county's spray program altogether because of the expense.

This will be paid for by increasing taxes?

The proposed regulations on those chemicals are the result of a 2001 federal lawsuit originally filed in California over other chemicals. Mosquito control chemicals sprayed from trucks were added later.

What does California have to do with North Carolina?

Mosquito spraying chemicals will be enveloped into the Clean Water Act in April if the proposed regulations stand as they are now, and those who violate them in even small ways will face fines and jail time. If it is proved a suspect knew they were violating the rules, they could pay a $100,000 fine and have five years to cool their heels in a federal prison.

As part of the Clean Water Act, mosquito control operations will need to get a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, the same process that governs permits for discharges from sewer plants and industrial chemical producers. Mosquito control permit applications, Brown said, will need to be signed by a government's chief administrative or political officer.

Garigen said that Horry County plans to satisfy the proposed rules by spending $18,000 for software that can be loaded into handheld global positioning system units that can then be connected to sprayers on each of the county's four mosquito control trucks.

As for the permits to do the spraying, Garigen estimated a general permit for a county program should need five to 10 pages of information and could be good for as long as five years.

Damn, don't you just hate how you have to cut down trees to comply with environmental regulations?

Among other things, the new regulations will require mosquito control programs to document the species and numbers of mosquitoes in a given location to determine that the thresholds are there to provide for spraying.

In Horry County, Garigen said, that means that someone will go to a location and do an in-person evaluation. This amounts to a person standing in a location and observing the mosquitoes that light on his or her skin.

Will this be a minimum wage job?

Finding people who can identify two species of mosquitoes on the fly, Brown said, will be neither easy nor cheap.

Nope.

The proposed regulations may go into effect in an unfinished state, Brown said, adding that if the result is to end mosquito spraying, the swarms of angry calls, emails and letters to Congress could make the threat of West Nile virus seem minor.

 New EPA rules could halt mosquito spraying

Some government agencies may be forced to zap their mosquito control programs when new federal regulations take effect next year.

And with that, county mosquito biologist Jeff Brown says, comes a mountain of paperwork, increased costs and the need for better technology.

Brown said if the regulations remain as they are when they go into effect, the county will be forced to stop spraying for adult mosquitoes. He said the county doesn't have the technology to do the mapping of where they would spray, a requirement of the new legislation.

Assistant County Manager Steve Stone said if the rules are as stringent as officials believe them to be, then the county cannot afford to make its program comply.

"It would, at a minimum, quadruple our current budget," he said.

This worried local leaders at the meeting, who said if the county can't afford it, there is no way they could. The rules also carry heavy penalties for noncompliance, ranging from hefty fines to jail time.

 Washing off boat deck still OK

KODIAK -- Fishermen and other boaters can rest easier knowing they won't need a federal permit to hose off their decks.

A bill that just passed the Senate extends the moratoria on discharge permit requirements for commercial and charter fishing vessels beyond the July 31 deadline.

"Say you're a sport fishing guide and you've taken your clients out, gotten a few halibut and you come in and hose off the deck. That would be a reportable discharge. They are talking about deck runoff, bilge water, gray water ... and it would affect 9,700 vessels in the state of Alaska alone," said Alaska U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski in a phone conversation from Washington, D.C.

In 2008 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency came out with regulations that would require discharges by vessels of any size to be reported to the EPA under the Clean Water Act.

"It's estimated that if the moratoria were not put in place, the EPA would be subject to issuing up to 140,000 permits by July 31," Murkowski said. "The EPA is not poised to do this and it is not necessary."

If you haven't noticed, the government is problematic at fixing problems and then fixing the problems that the fix created.

LOWER SALFORD - Lower Salford officials hope to soften the blow of state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) stormwater regulations by joining with the more than 30 other municipalities that comprise the Southeastern Pennsylvania Stormwater Coalition.

Local municipalities are reeling not only from the estimated costs of compliance, but from the Sept. 10, 2010, deadline for submitting a renewal application for Pennsylvania's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general permit, or PAG-13, which expires March 9, 2011.

"Talk about unfunded mandates — this is a beautiful one," Lower Salford supervisors Chairman Douglas Gifford said.

The new regulations required small municipalities to implement stormwater management programs and to obtain permits for stormwater discharge from small municipal separate storm sewer systems, or MS4s.

Permit regulations were designed according to the water quality standards of the federal Clean Water Act and the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law.

"We're trying to learn what they're looking for and when," Gifford said. "The when is the problem."

How do you comply when a government bureaucracy can't or won't fill in the details? Not little detail, but the deadline before a town is fined for being non-compliant.

Gifford said that he is unsure how much the TMDL requirements could end up costing Lower Salford, since the model ordinance has not yet been published.

There are no grants or financial assistance, Gifford said.

Fox estimated a cost of more than $6 million solely to retrofit stormwater inlets in Montgomery Township.

 Increase in water bills or an increase in taxes, the residents will be paying for the new regulations.

As you can see, the over reaching authority of the EPA inadvertently creates chaos in our lives, towns, and our liberties. I say we relegate the EPA to an advisory role, with limited authority, and let the local authorities make these decisions based on their own experiences and their best judgement.

Need more Federal regulation reading? Check out these articles:

• Who elected EPA?
• How Regulation Kills Medical Innovation
• Proposed EPA Emissions Rules Threaten to Send Biomass Heating Industry Up in Smoke
• Defining Nonhazardous Secondary Wastes
• It's Really About Controlling Our Lives
• Kerry Looking to Strike Deal With Utilities on Carbon Emissions Cap
• Green Fields: Ethanol blend wall to hurt corn prices, Energy says