President Romney's first week in office....

The votes are in, the tally set, Mitt Romney is our President, inaugurated a week or so ago. Have to give him credit, he sure hit the ground running. With the House and Senate all locked up in GOP hands, it has been easy to make the changes the right wing has been wanting and fighting for years. 


As a recap, what has happened in the last week. 


The Ryan budget finally became law, austerity and lower taxes on business, a voucher plan for Medicare to mention a few things. 


A 20% increase in the defense budget. 


The biggest changes coming the regulatory environment. EPA, FDA, Department of Education all defunded. New laws rescinding Federal mandates in virtually all areas of regulation, replacing them with recommendations or suggestions to the states. States now will be responsible for their own environment, education, food safety and immigration. 


Virtually all Federal education, social programs, education programs, loan guarantees are abolished, leaving it up to the states to fund their own social programs, if they choose to have them at all. Medicaid and Food Stamps are eliminated on the Federal level. 


The NLRB too was defunded and the question of labor relations to be answered by the states, the national minimum wage being rescinded, also left up to the states. Revenue sharing is being phased out so as not to share the wealth between the states. 


Each state will be losing about 1/3rd of their budgets due to Federal cutbacks, leaving the states to replace that funding from other sources. 


As promised, the entire Affordable Care Act was revoked and the Federal mandate that any hospital MUST treat a person on an emergency basis, insured or not, is also repealed. 


Congress is now considering repealing the American with Disabilities Act, all laws regarding discrimination, workplace safety and equal pay and protections. 


To reduce the liability of Social Security, Social Security Disability program is terminated. 


The military will no longer allow gay's to serve, gay right's are being purged and national laws are under study to remove state responsibilities and authorities on this issue. 


There is also a new cabinet post, the Department of Moral Responsibility. This department will provide moral guidance to all areas of Federal responsibility, to provide litmus tests for appointees.


The first week was not without controversy too. Vice President Jindal had to step down a few days after taking the oath of office. The Congress passed a law making a person a person at the moment of conception. Mr. Jindal's mother was 6 months pregnant when she emigrated to the US which disqualified Mr. Jindal since he was a 'person' created in India. Mr. Jindal was replaced by Paul Ryan as Vice President. 


And this is just the beginning.......

Propaganda and Hate, are you are you as sick of it as much as I am?

For the last year I have been compelled to do battle with those extremists on the right as well as the left. Dr. Goebbels would be more than proud with the multiple propaganda machines in play, Hitler himself coined the phrase, "when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." ".

There are multiple examples of how propaganda has worked itself into our collective consciousness'. The subjects range from the President's right to serve to Monsanto and GMO's. 


As I said, the right and the left are guilty. I use those terms as a matter if simplicity. One can break them down into their specific components, but don't think that is necessary.

On a social networking site the latest rant is about Monsanto and GMO's. I asked the simple question, why are so many people against Monsanto? What have they done so wrong to draw the ire of so many people? Well, it all starts with propaganda. Pictures and graphics and data taken totally out of context is how it begins. So I asked the obvious question, is any of this true? So I did my research and was able to come to my own conclusion when taking the facts into consideration. These facts came from reputable sources other than from sources who had an axe to grind and also from Monsanto's site. I sourced from FDA and EPA and the NIH among others. The results were clear, those who 'hate' Monsanto have absolutely no basis to do so if they were to accept the facts, scientifically proven. 


For example, some argue that glyphosate used in Roundup causes cancer. This is completely false. There is no evidence to support that claim, in fact just the opposite. Some argue that Roundup poisons people, again a claim which is completely false. The state of California has a reporting system and in 13 years not one case of hospitalization due to Roundup poisoning has been reported. What the haters do not tell you is that the patent for Roundup expired in 2000, twelve years ago. Other pesticide manufacturers use glyphosate and some of their chemical formulations, the surficants they use when mixed with glyphosate can cause some issues, but glyphosate in and of itself is safe. 


Genetically modified seeds is another hate issue. Some argue, as in a current court case brought by a lobby against Monsanto that GMO's are not organic and that Monsanto should not be able to actually patent a seed product, that the farmers fear that Monsanto would sue them for cross-contamination. What they won't tell you is this. According to FDA, acting under LAW created rules regarding GMO's in 1992. Without getting into details, what FDA said is that GMO products are considered exactly the same if their characteristics are identical to a non-GMO product. These rule have withstood every court case. As for cross-contamination, GMO seeds are self terminating, meaning they cannot reproduce, hence no cross-contamination. Monsanto has never filed suit in a cross-contamination situation and has said they will not if this were the case. What the propaganda also claims is that Monsanto is sue happy and will sue organic farmers, their argument being over 700 farmers settling out of court and 124 other lawsuits. What they won't tell you is that those settlements were a result of those farmers breaking their contract with Monsanto over seed theft and/or seed hoarding. These were farmers who bought Monsanto seed and broke their contracts. The also claim that Monsanto enters property illegally, which is also false. Monsanto asks the farmer if they may enter the property, if the farmer refuses, Monsanto goes to court and gets a court order to allow them access because they have a contract with the farmer and have a right to protect their patent rights. Which takes us back to why they want the courts to deny Monsanto the right to patent their seeds. What I found interesting is that some people then use the argument that FDA is corrupt, EPA is corrupt. Okay, so Monsanto is fine, but the government is now corrupt.

Briefly I will touch on hormones, rGBH. This is another propaganda issue against Monsanto. The science disputes the claims made by the haters. But there is a twist to this propaganda. Monsanto has been vilified for continuing to sell rGBH to farmers when the truth is, Monsanto sold their rGBH product line to Eli Lilly in 2007, five years ago!! Imagine the silence when I mention this fact. 


Lets shift to Keystone XL. Here are some facts which the haters won't tell you. Keystone XL is NOT the first pipeline built by TransCanada to the US, there is one which was built a couple of years back to St. Louis, MO from the tar sands in Alberta. Where was the outcry then? If the pipeline is so 'unsafe' then why allow the first one, which has proven to be extremely safe. There are nearly 200,000 miles of pipeline in this country already. Why is this one drawing so much attention? Oh, the aquifer issue in Nebraska? What they won't tell you is that the state of Nebraska and TC have rerouted the pipeline. What they won't tell you that in the state of Nebraska alone, land owners are being compensated with one time payments for the use of their land anywhere from $10,000 to $110,000, not to mention the taxes which will flow to country governments, one of which is planning on using that money to build new schools, something they could not afford to do without the pipeline. Then there are the refineries being expanded to accommodate the oil. This pipeline will increase oil capacity to the US by another 900,000 barrels a day from a friendly source. Now, do you really want to know what the argument over the pipeline is? It's not the pipeline surprisingly enough. The pipeline is a red herring. What the environmentalists want to do is shut down the tar sands mining and they believe that if the pipeline is not built, the oil sands mining will stop. Silly of course, but those are the facts. The oil sands issue is a Canadian, not a US issue. The Canadian courts have backed the government of Alberta, so these guys figure they can take their case to the US and force a US President to step in on a Canadian issue. Imagine Canada telling us NOT to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico!!!

How about Exxon and their 'profits'? Last year Exxon had revenues of nearly $500 B. Exxon paid $108 B in taxes, $30 B of those taxes were US income taxes on profits of $71 B, their net profit was $41 B, $10 B of which was from an asset sale. Exxon's profit margin is roughly 6.5%, about the same as GM. For comparison, Apple, which has more money in the bank than the US Treasury, is $28%, Microsoft is 33%, McDonalds is 17%, WalMart 3.4%. Yet there are those who want to bash Exxon...my question is why Exxon? Imagine if we had no oil companies, what would be our complaint then?


Now for some political crap. 


Obama said unemployment would not go over 8%. 


Yes, he said that. He also was repeating what the Bush transition team had told him. No one knew at the time how bad the economy had tanked. The fact is in his first month in office, unemployment went over 8%, hardly his fault. May I point out that unemployment peaked at a little over 10%. In comparison, unemployment peaked over 12% when Reagan was President, 20% where I lived in central Florida. Jobs are coming back from Mexico and China as the standard of living in those countries has negated the lower labor costs, plus the two tiered UAW labor agreements. VW spent a billion $ on a new plant in Chattanooga, Hyundai and Kia and BMW and Daimler-Benz are expanding US factories and increasing production. GM is reopening the Saturn plant in Spring Hill. 


Obama's economic policies have been a total failure.


Unemployment is back down to when he took office, the stock market is back. GM and Chrysler were saved and have returned to profitability and expanding, increasing investments. Record profits. Instead of building on the positive momentum the GOP won't even admit that it exists. 


Repeal Obamacare.


No President can repeal anything. 85% of Americans have health insurance, so who is complaining about mandates? The 7% who refuse to take responsibility for their own medical care, letting the tax payer foot their bills. 


Same sex marriage. 


Give me one secular, legal reason why this cannot be allowed?

Taxing the uber wealthy is a tax hike.


False, the tax breaks the wealthy were given on their personal income was temporary, all the President wants them to pay is the actual, statutory rate authorized by Congress. Since the tax breaks are on personal income, it has NO effect on job creation. There is no shred of evidence to prove that those tax breaks have created one single job in 10 years. In fact, tax breaks are actually an expense according to the IRS. That expense, which will have to be paid for by the rest of us is running close to $1 trillion. 


I could go on and on, I have probably already lost my audience as it is. My point here is this. Beware of the propaganda machines. Become a cynic. Question everything. Think on your own, don't let anyone tell you what to think or believe. 

Job killing Health Care Law?

I really love this one. Republicans are using a label to 'sell' their justification for repealing the health care law, passed by BOTH Houses of Congress and signed by the President of the United States of America. Job Killing is actually in the title of this bill. I am curious, what jobs are being killed? If you take a look at your local newspaper, you will see in INCREASE in job opportunities for the health care field. Why is that I wonder. Is it because the new law requires insurors (not the government) to provide wellness benefits at no extra charge. This means there will be a great need for these types of practicioners. Another benefit for compelling people to pay their own way, by purchasing their own insurance instead of taking advantage of emergency rooms is that they will now be able to see a doctor before a more serious problem pops up. Does that mean we will need more doctors or NP's? You bet. 40+million more insured will also require insurance companies to hire more people as well. A simple by product will also be we will be a healthier nation, increasing productivity in the workplace.

Now, the question I have is, what jobs are being killed? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest jobs being lost. In fact, the teeth of the new law doesn't take effect for another couple of years. The CBO, which BOTH parties have agreed to use as an arbiter in such issues states that over the next 20 years will save over a trillion dollars. So, the deficit is reduced as a side benefit. Where do these savings come from? Well, as it stands now, anyone who goes to the Emergency Room MUST be treated whether they have insurance or not. Why, because the Federal government mandates that if the hospital accepts Federal money, they cannot turn you away. Now, if virtually everyone is insured, the Federal government, insurance companies and states don't have to foot the bill. Who pays now? WE DO, in higher insurance costs, hospital costs and taxes.

Personally, I would like to see Medicare for all, such as with the Medicare Advantage plans. These plans are run as a public/private sector operation. The system is already in place. Everyone pays a premium, based mostly on where they live, but there is a base rate everyone is charged and you have the option to add or deduct benefits. Certainly this is less confusing. The best part is that it comes through payroll deduction and the costs are balanced over the entire nation rather than by state. This what is called the 'public option'.

Here's an idea about forcing Americans to buy their own health insurance

The idea is very simple. If the mandatory purchase of personal insurance is struck down, it can be replaced by a simpler method to force compliance.

As it stands now, hospitals are compelled by law to treat EVERYONE who shows up whether they are insured or not. If this law were repealed it would mean that hospitals would have the 'option' to turn away those who are uninsured. This way the taxpayer would not have to pay for care that the individual refuses to pay for themselves. All of the other provisions can be kept in place to make insurance affordable for those who cannot afford it, but the choice and risk is the individual's. A responsible person would not take the risk, those who are not will be denied help. It's about time everyone takes responsibility for their own actions and not expect the government to bail them out.

Federal Takeover of Health Reform?

Okay, someone explain this one to me. The Republic Party is now into Repeal and Replace the Health Reform LAW. What are a couple of the things they want? Lets start with Tort Reform, limiting medical malpractice awards. As it stands now, tort laws regarding medical malpractice are governed by state law. The Republic Party wants to replace state law with...umm...Federal law, taking state protections away and replaced with Federal protections. Who decides what those protections are? The Federal government, that's who. Wait, aren't the Tea Party/Republic Party the ones who want less Federal control over states right? The second change would be the ability to buy insurance across state lines. Each state governs their own insurance industry. To be able to sell across state lines would require Federal standards that would trump state insurance controls. Who would set those standards? The Federal government. Wait, aren't the Tea Party/Republic Party the ones who want less Federal control over states right?

What the Health Reform law does do with regards to buying across state lines is simply this, it sets minimum standards for what the insurance industry can offer it's customers. While you cannot buy across state lines necessarily, at least the minimum standards would be set for all Americans. Seems like a fair compromise to me. For now.

Before the right wing complains much more, think about what you are wanting to do first.

Health Care Addendum

Much was made on Thursday by the Republic Party that the majority of Americans dislike the Health Care Reform Bill approved by both the Senate and the House. The President noted that when asked, the public approved of the individual parts of the bills by an overwhelming majority. What the Republic Party said is essentially true as well as what the President said, if you base your vote on polls rather than by what is right. The one thing the Republic folks failed to mention and my to my chagrin, neither did the Democrats, that the VAST majority of the American people favour a public option, which the Republic Party will never agree to, ever.

My friends, this is a representative democracy. We elect our lawmakers to promulgate bills and laws in the interests of us all. We surrender our perceived right to have direct voting by the public on national issues. Think of it this way, if the American people had a direct vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 do you really think that it would have been approved by the American people? No it would not have. The idea of having a representative democracy is to ensure that in most cases, the government will do the right thing, even if it is not popular or approved by the majority of the population.

Health Care Reform Bill will become law, like it or not.

It is clear to me that the Republic Party is getting the amendments they added to the Senate's version of health care reform. 70% of what they want is in the bill.

So there is NO misunderstanding, the Senate Bill has already been passed with 60 votes for, a super-majority. The House passed their bill with a simple majority. Much has been made about reconciliation, a process where Senate bills are passed with a simple majority, as is stated in the Constitution. Having said all that, the process now is simple. The House now passes the Senate Bill as it stands. It goes to the President for his signature and becomes law.

The deal being struck between the House and the Senate is simple also. The House passes the Senate Bill by majority vote and then the House presents a bill to make adjustments to the Senate bill which has become law, to remove the parts of the bill which the House finds objectionable. The bill then goes to the Senate and under reconciliation, a majority vote, the changes are implemented. That bill then goes to the President for his signature into law.

Okay, do we all understand now?

The President gave the Republic representative's ample opportunity to accept the reality of the situation and offered them the chance to be part of the process. The answer was, start over and take baby steps. The Republic Party has had ample opportunity over the years to do just that, take the baby steps and chose not to. Oh, I am sorry..I am wrong. The Republic Party did pass legislation to create the unfunded Medicare Part D, the Prescription Drug plan. I have Part D and I cannot for the life of me figure it out. One of the parts of that law protected the drug companies from any negotiations to save the government money, in other words, the government pays whatever the drug companies want to charge for they drugs and also banned the re-importation of drugs from Canada, the same ones we have here but at a lower cost. It is an interesting note to point out that the VA is mandated to negotiate with the drug companies for the best price, but not Medicare. This new health care plan closes the donut-hole in part D and requires negotiating for the best price. Did I mention that the Part D law was passed by the Republic Party by a majority vote, by way of reconciliation? The same reconciliation procedure that the Republic party is complaining about now against the Democrats?

As the President said, this bill will become law and let the voters decide in November who was right.

Dems lose majority in Senate

Well, the Dems blew it. After months of needless bickering and backroom deals one of two things will happen regarding health care reform. We will get stuck with a less than perfect solution so complex that lawyers will spend years unraveling it with the loopholes no one considered. In the mean time, the reform we need will end up being a joke. The other possibility is that the Congress will dump this white elephant and do the simplest of solutions, medicare for all. Give us the option to buy into Medicare and be done with it. Everything President Obama wants to accomplish can be done with this option. I pray for the gods to instill some semblance of logic to this project.

Who loses in the Health Care Reform Bill?

What is truly sad about the new health care bill? The Republican states that chose to say no. To get the needed votes, Democratic senators held the process hostage to get certain things for their states. In one case, Florida this makes for interesting politics. Sen. Nelson got to grandfather in Medicare Plus for Floridians. Florida also has a caretaker Republican senator who we all know will not vote for the bill. Had it not been for Sen. Nelson, Florida would have been left out of the process. Now the question is, when the next election is held for senator in Florida, which Republican will come forth and say they would have voted for Floridians? Probably Charlie Crist will, he's no fool. The thing is, what Republican senator running for election/re-election who refused to be a part of the process can possibly win since they made no effort on behalf of their constituents? The adage that a senator knows best even if it goes against the people who elect them won't hold much water. This bill would have been much better had the Republicans taken part in the process rather than being obstructionists. Even in the committee's when Republicans offered suggestions that they wanted, no one voted for the bill.

The big losers are the folks who have Republican senators that failed in their responsibility to work for the public good and to their constituents needs. By voting no and not being a part of the process because they do not want Mr. Obama to succeed is a terrible legacy to leave thier voters.

This process has be filled with hatred and tremendous animosity against a President who is fulfilling his campaign promises. The people elected Mr. Obama because we believed he would do exactly what he said he would do. Guess what? He has. He has kept his word to the American people and the Republicans have done everything in their power to see that he fails. Why would the Republicans want to deliberately sabotage a presidency that has full public support?

Diety help the Republicans who are following their party over the cliff like lemmings.