Parallels

In the course of researching a rebuttal to this Telegraph story, I was absolutely gobsmacked by the parallels between the Steel Industry of the 1970's and the auto industry of today.

During the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. steel industry came under increasing pressure from foreign competition. Manufacture in Germany and Japan was booming. Foreign mills and factories, built with the latest technology, benefited from lower labor costs and powerful government-corporate partnerships, allowing them to capture increasing market shares of steel and steel products. Separately, demand for steel softened due to recessions, the 1973 oil crisis, and increasing use of other materials.^[9][42] At this critical juncture, free market, anti-union policies, and deregulation, especially under President Ronald Reagan, came into play. Free market pressures exposed the U.S. steel industry's own internal problems, which included a now-outdated manufacturing base that had been over-expanded in the 1950s and 1960s, hostile management and labor relationships, the inflexibility of United Steelworkers regarding wage cuts and work-rule reforms, oligarchic management styles, and poor strategic planning by both union and management. In particular, Pittsburgh faced its own challenges. Local coke and iron ore deposits were depleted, raising material costs. The large mills in the Pittsburgh region also faced competition from newer, more profitable "mini-mills" and non-union mills with lower labor costs.^[42]

Beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the steel industry in Pittsburgh began to implode. Following the 1981–1982 recession, for example, the mills laid off 153,000 workers.^[42] The steel mills began to shut down. These closures caused a ripple effect, as railroads, mines, and other factories across the region lost business and closed. The local economy suffered a depression, marked by high unemployment and underemployment, as laid-off workers took lower-paying, non-union jobs. Pittsburgh suffered as elsewhere in the Rust Belt with a declining population, and like many other U.S. cities, it also saw white flight to the suburbs.^[43]

Emphasis mine. It was a potent cocktail of union, corporate and governmental errors along with free market pressures that the American steel and auto industries were unable to overcome that led, in the end, to the demise of those industries.

Where the parallels diverge comes in how the cities of Flint and Pittsburgh handled the paradigm change. Where the city of Pittsburgh reinvented itself from Steel City to High Tech Haven...

Present-day Pittsburgh, with a diversified economy, a low cost of living, and a rich infrastructure for education and culture, has been ranked as one of the World's Most Livable Cities.^[48]

... the city of Flint is tearing whole neighborhoods down...

The government looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature.

Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 per cent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area.

...and the Obama Administration wants to bring this plan to a neighborhood near you! The reason for this is an obvious one - the cities in question are in decline....

"Places like Flint have hit rock bottom. They're at the point where it's better to start knocking a lot of buildings down," she (Karina Pallagst, director of the Shrinking Cities in a Global Perspective programme at the University of California, Berkeley) said.

Flint, sixty miles north of Detroit, was the original home of General Motors. The car giant once employed 79,000 local people but that figure has shrunk to around 8,000.

Unemployment is now approaching 20 per cent and the total population has almost halved to 110,000.

The exodus – particularly of young people – coupled with the consequent collapse in property prices, has left street after street in sections of the city almost entirely abandoned.

The Telegraph tap dances around many of the reasons for the flight - lack of jobs, high unemployment etc - but they never get to WHY these jobs are leaving.... usually a government climate that makes it next to impossible to attract and maintain businesses (hello Minnesota). I mean a publicly traded company is ultimately responsible to it's shareholders. If the shareholders are not making money then the company has two choices - move to a climate where it is cheaper to do business (off-shoring) or go out of business! It's that simple.

But Mr Kildee, who has lived there nearly all his life, said he had first to overcome a deeply ingrained American cultural mindset that "big is good" and that cities should sprawl – Flint covers 34 square miles.

Look I'm not saying that Flint should be forced into doing something that won't work for them. If shrinking the size of the town works for THEM then by all means, they should do it. Where I do depart with the idea is that this is something that should be forced on other cities due to FEDERAL MANDATE! Pittsburgh re-invented itself without federal involvement - that's fantastic - but how do you Pittsburghers will react to the Federal government coming in and telling them that their jobs and neighborhoods are being torn down because the Federal government thinks their city is "too big"? We should not be using Flint's cookie cutter on everyone else. Let the cities of Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Memphis, Detroit and the 46 other "targeted" cities decide what's best for their citizens. If it is reinvention ala Pittsburgh, reduction ala Flint, a combination of the two or some other outside of the box solution - it has to be up to the city and the county...not the Federal Nanny State.

The Proper Role Of Government

The first 60 days of the Obama Administration has led to one interesting consequence (unintended no doubt). There has been much discussion about the role of government in every day life. Whether it be on the national level or the state and local level, people are talking about where government belongs in the equation of our daily lives. The latest source of the discussion is the "GIVE" Act. Both Michelle Malkin and Ed Morrissey have posts up discussing what is and is not in the bill. Moe Lane (HT Ed) however, takes a look at something that is in the bill that should make a lot of people on both sides of the aisle sit up and take notice.

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:

‘SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

‘(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

‘(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

‘(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.

‘(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.

‘(4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.

‘(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office.

‘(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.

‘(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

Emphasis in the original. Before those of you on the right start cheering about how this can and will prohibit ACORN and the SEIU from getting these dollars, realize that this also effects pro-life (and pro-choice) organizations, prochial schools, churches, food banks (that are operated by religious groups) and many others. Groups like Teen Challenge - who use the gospel to help addicts get free from their drug and alcohol addictions, would be ineligible for GIVE Act dollars. Churches that sponsor food banks and soup kitchens and who rely heavily on volunteers are left out as are any group that engages in political advocacy like the NRA or the Sierra Club.

I mentioned the 1st Amendment in a prior post and it fits here as well. The GIVE Act as it is currently written will force these legitimate organizations to make the ultimate harsh choice - the choice between mission statement and much needed funding.

Michelle notes that this bill has bi-partisan support. What it really needs is some bi-partisan opposition. There is too much in this bill that just does not fit into the proper role of government - especially in the proper role of the American government as laid out by the Constitution. It should not be dictating to these organizations what they can and can not do. It should also not be funding volunteer activity to this level. There are much better ways to encourage volunteerism. We need to get back to the model that was shown to us by the Founding Fathers - one of shared sacrifice based on our talents and our time. Those who have the money and not the time should provide the funding and those who have the time and not the money should be helping do the heavy lifting and those of us blessed with both (expendable income and time) should be helping in both areas. When we stand shoulder to shoulder with our neighbors to help those who are in need - we give more than any check from the government could ever give - we give the love and respect that are just as important (to those in need) as cold, impersonal cash can be.

You Don't Say...

After 5 days of pretty bad press, Sen. Waddoups has started to back-pedal off of his call for a "drinkers database".

Even though he hasn't ruled out the need for a database of drinkers, Senate President Michael Waddoups said Tuesday he's worried about the state being seen as Big Brother when it comes to regulating alcohol.

Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, said the perception is that lawmakers are ready to "now begin the 'Big Brother,' if you will, supervision of all of the drinkers in Utah" despite having made no decisions about whether to collect information on private club customers.

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. has called on lawmakers to eliminate private club membership requirements. Private clubs, Utah's equivalent of bars, now require customers to fill out applications and pay a fee before they can enter.

Huntsman told The Associated Press he is opposed to creating a statewide database to track bar patrons, calling that "a rather frightening, almost Orwellian, proposition" that would make the state even less friendly to tourists.

Orwellian??? Big Brother??? Gee Governor, you don't say????

The common sense arguments to this proposal came from two Salt Lake City Democrats.

Sen. Gene Davis, D-Salt Lake, said he was concerned about people drinking and driving and underage drinking, but that addressing those concerns didn't need to be so intrusive. He pointed out that there are people who never drink who also like to go to private clubs to dance and socialize.

"Why is it anyone's business they are there?" he said.

Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake, said it was not an inconsistent position to allow individuals the personal choice to drink and to also want safe streets and communities. He emphasized strengthening and enforcing existing drunken-driving laws and parental education programs as the appropriate ways to achieve those goals.

Thank you Senator McCoy. Instead of parroting propaganda from MADD, these Senators are coming up with common sense solutions that not only preserve individual freedoms and personal choices (even if the choices are bad ones) they are also proposing stiffening the consequences of making the bad choices! As someone who has lived in states with bigger drunk driving problems than Utah has, I have seen first hand, the devastating results of letting repeat drunk drivers back out on the streets.

Senators Davis and McCoy have the right idea here. Let's step up enforcement of existing laws. That really is a no-brainer. Education - again no brainer.

Personal freedom and personal responsibility go hand in hand. Kudos to Senators Davis and McCoy for reminding us all of that basic tenent of democracy!

Nanny Government - From the Right?????

Every time I think "ah I live in a red state...life is good", Senate President Mike Waddoups (R?-Taylorsville) opens his mouth and proves once again that not all the "nanny staters" are democrats!

A proposal to scan the driver licenses of bar patrons and keep it on file in a state law enforcement database is a good start, says Senate President Michael Waddoups, but he wants to see the program go further.

Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, says he wants to see the database idea start with private clubs, but extend to restaurants that serve diners beer and liquor.

That would greatly expand the scope of the data collection and create a new requirement for restaurants, which are not required to have people sign up as members in order to serve beer and liquor. There are fewer than 400 clubs and taverns and nearly 1,100 restaurants licensed to serve alcohol...

But the governor and bar owners have expressed concern toward a bill that Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, is crafting. He would store the information in a central database that law enforcement could access for accident investigations or in the event of a traffic stop.

There are so many ways where this is wrong, wrong, WRONG! First and foremost, is the fact that we are scanning law abiding citizens information in order to give law enforcement an "excuse" to look for them later. It is a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. What law is the "sober driver" breaking? Last I looked, going to a club and having a coke or two was not illegal. Nor is going to a bar to have a beer illegal - as long as you do not get behind the wheel of a car. What business is it of Senator Waddoups or the State Patrol, if I go into a club to see a friend's band? As long as I do not get behind the wheel of my vehicle after getting a blood alcohol level of 0.04 I am not in violation of any law and am therefore exempt from search. Just because I was on the premise is not reason enough to pull me over! I must display some sign of impairment before the police have the "probable cause" to stop me!

"In a restaurant, if they're serving alcohol, the person ordering the alcohol should show the ID," said Waddoups, who was receiving a demonstration of the license scanners after the Legislature's budget meeting Friday. "At some point, the restaurant would feed [the information] into the central database."

I have no problems showing ID to get an alcoholic beverage - that IS Constitutional law. Storing the data for future use by "law enforcement" however crosses the line!

Tom Guinney, a partner in the Gastronomy family of restaurants which includes Café Pierpont and The New Yorker, said the mandatory scanning of restaurant patrons' licenses to add it to a central database would be "an absolute customer relations fiasco."

That an understatement. Imagine the outrage of a tea-totaling grandmother getting "carded" - or the very obviously pregnant mother of a toddler - just because they walked into Applebees for lunch with a friend. Or the attendees of a business meeting that is held over lunch at Em's? How happy do you think these folks would be having to produce an ID even though they were not ordering alcohol? And all of you "libertarians" out there?

Then again, this should not surprise anyone who has paid attention to politics in Utah. After all, we are talking about the same Senator Waddoups that thinks that Utah parents are too dumb to tell their children about the dangers of alcohol and that Utah children are too fragile to even SEE an alcoholic beverage being made....

Waddoups has already objected to restaurants that he said are becoming too much like bars. He has advocated for requiring restaurants to prepare drinks and store alcohol away from where diners might see it.

Here's a hot tip for "Nanny" Waddoups....big government intervention into the lives and businesses of law abiding citizens is NOT a conservative principle! It is not a Republican principle and it is most assuredly NOT a US principle! The Founding Fathers rebelled against this kind of British intervention. Will it need to get to that point with the you?

Calling The Tune

Well this comes to no shock to anyone who has been paying attention to the realities of government run health care (HT Ed).

Imagine a country where the government regularly checks the waistlines of citizens over age 40. Anyone deemed too fat would be required to undergo diet counseling. Those who fail to lose sufficient weight could face further "reeducation" and their communities subject to stiff fines.

Is this some nightmarish dystopia?

No, this is contemporary Japan.

The Japanese government argues that it must regulate citizens' lifestyles because it is paying their health costs. This highlights one of the greatly underappreciated dangers of "universal healthcare." Any government that attempts to guarantee healthcare must also control its costs. The inevitable next step will be to seek to control citizens' health and their behavior. Hence, Americans should beware that if we adopt universal healthcare, we also risk creating a "nanny state on steroids" antithetical to core American principles.

Emphasis mine. Every time I put up a post on this subject some well meaning person tells me that it won't happen. Poppycock!

Other countries with universal healthcare are already restricting individual freedoms in the name of controlling health costs. For example, the British government has banned some television ads for eggs on the grounds that they were promoting an unhealthy lifestyle. This is a blatant infringement of egg sellers' rights to advertise their products.

In 2007, New Zealand banned Richie Trezise, a Welsh submarine cable specialist, from entering the country on the grounds that his obesity would "impose significant costs ... on New Zealand's health or special education services." Richie later lost weight and was allowed to immigrate, but his wife had trouble slimming and was kept home. Germany has mounted an aggressive anti-obesity campaign in workplaces and schools to promote dieting and exercise. Citizens who fail to cooperate are branded as "antisocial" for costing the government billions of euros in medical expenses.

Look - we all know that being overweight is not healthy. However it is not the governments place to tell a free person what he can and can not eat! Free people are free to do what they want and they should also be free to suffer the consequences of those actions. Get pulled over for drunk driving - go to jail. It is Newton's Third Law of Physics in action.

CPISA Update

KARE 11 did a report on this story last night. HT Pheisty




While the Consumer Product Safety Commission is reviewing this, Pheisty has a suggestion. She suggests that concerned parents (and thrift store owners) call the CPSC and let them know how badly this law, as written, will hurt people who depend on thrift stores.

First, please do your part and call the CPSC. It will only take a minute, and you’ll have done your civic duty. This issue crosses party lines. This law will affect every common American citizen who has to watch their budgets closely (the vast majority of us).

Here’s the number:

800-638-2772

(TTY 800-638-8270)

If you don’t want to call, send a fax:

Fax: (301) 504-0124 and (301) 504-0025

If you don’t want to do either, write a message on their online contact form.

And if you’re a real serious sort of protester, please go to this page for a list of officers and their respective contact information.

Sounds like a plan to me!

Hell Hath No Fury...

like a garage sale mom who has had her garage sale going curtailed. Pheisty started a firestorm today.....

Have any of you heard about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008? If you have, you probably heard that it was passed to protect children from imported goods that may contain lead or other harmful contaminants. Well did you know that the bill also includes the government-sanctioned testing of resale children’s clothing?

That’s right. As of February 10, 2009, you will no longer be able to sell or buy children’s used clothing under the CPSIA. Not at the Goodwill, not at a consignment shop, not on eBay. Not even at a yard sale. If you do, you face a $100,000 fine and 5 years of imprisonment. That is, unless the seller can find a government-approved way to test the garments that won’t force them out of business.

She then goes on to quote this LA Times article on the subject.

Barring a reprieve, regulations set to take effect next month could force thousands of clothing retailers and thrift stores to throw away trunkloads of children's clothing.

The law, aimed at keeping lead-filled merchandise away from children, mandates that all products sold for those age 12 and younger -- including clothing -- be tested for lead and phthalates, which are chemicals used to make plastics more pliable. Those that haven't been tested will be considered hazardous, regardless of whether they actually contain lead.

I decided to read the legislation - I apparently had nothing better to do tonight. Thankfully for me the section in question was right at the beginning of the bill! The pertinent section starts at the bottom of page 7 and runs through page 8 and details the accreditation time line. While you can read all of the other items that are covered on the time line, I want to focus on Section B (vi)...

ALL OTHER CHILDREN’S PRODUCT SAFETY RULES.—The Commission shall publish notice of the requirements for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies to assess conformity with other children’s product safety rules at the earliest practicable date, but in no case later than 10 months after the date of enactment of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, or, in the case of children’s product safety rules established or revised 1 year or more after such date of enactment, not later than 90 days before such rules or revisions take effect.

This section right here is the section that covers clothing and anything else not covered in sections B (i) through (v). Childrens clothing has been regulated by the federal government since 1972! Then (as now) the Legislature had only the best of intentions. After all - who could ever be against legislation that is designed to "protect" the children. The problem with all good intentions are the unintended consequences. In this case the unintended consequences are pretty steep for any non-profit that has ever funded a mission field through resale shops and garage sales. Every Girl Scout troop that has ever knitted booties to sell in a craft market, every crafter who has sold hand quilted baby bibs and blankets, every stay at home mom who has made barrettes and bangles to earn a little mad money is going to be put out of the market. Companies like Once Upon A Child and Kid to Kid will be put out of business - their employees out of work in a recession because they are not going to be able to certify clothing that their customers bring in!

The fashion industry is already discussing strategies for compliance and it is not good for small business.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this bill is unintentionally retro-active which is unconstitutional! This bill will make sure that clothing that was manufactured before the enacted date will not be able to be sold without being certified first. Basically with the stroke of a pen, both parties of our government (and our president) retro-actively put thousands of people out of business and out of work! All for the sake of "the children".....

I wonder who will save "the children" from starvation or from the elements when their parents can no longer afford food and clothing thanks to their "good intentions".

Zero Common Sense

Parents of Minnesota school children take note. This will be coming to a school near you if the Governor signs HF 3391.

Children in a New Zealand school have been banned from bringing cakes to share on their birthdays, due to new government healthy eating guidelines.

I am one of those parents. The Junior Logician's birthday always seemed to fall on a school party day so I would bring cake for him to share with his classmates. It was a "thing" for us all through grade school. The teachers enjoyed it, the parents enjoyed it and (most importantly) the kids enjoyed it. Now the government wants to end that.

Is there really anything else we can say on this...other than how stupid are we to allow this kind of intrusion into our daily lives?????

Here Is What Happens

Here is what happens when you give 85 Democrats control of the Minnesota House of Representatives!

1.1A bill for an act
1.2relating to public health; increasing affordability and continuity of care for state 1.3health care programs; modifying health care provisions; establishing a public 1.4health access fund; increasing the tobacco impact fees; providing subsidies for 1.5employee share of employer-subsidized insurance; establishing the Minnesota 1.6Health Insurance Exchange; requiring certain employers to offer Section 125 1.7Plan; creating an affordability standard; requiring mandated reports; authorizing 1.8 rulemaking; appropriating money;amending Minnesota Statutes 2006, sections 1.916A.725, subdivision 1; 62A.65, subdivision 3; 62E.141; 62L.12, subdivisions 1.102, 4; 256.01, by adding a subdivision; 256.9658, subdivisions 3, 9; 256B.061; 1.11256B.69, by adding a subdivision; 256D.03, by adding a subdivision; 256L.05, 1.12by adding a subdivision; 256L.06, subdivision 3; 256L.07, subdivision 3; 1.13256L.15, by adding a subdivision; Minnesota Statutes 2007 Supplement, sections 1.1413.46, subdivision 2; 256B.056, subdivision 10; 256L.03, subdivisions 3, 5; 1.15256L.04, subdivisions 1, 7; 256L.05, subdivision 3a; 256L.07, subdivision 1; 1.16256L.15, subdivision 2; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, 1.17chapters 16A; 145; 256B; proposing coding for new law as Minnesota Statutes, 1.18chapter 62U; repealing Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 256L.15, subdivision 3. 1.19BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

If you are a smoker, a member of the middle class (income $45,000 to $150,000 annual income), an employer, a health care professional or a health care consumer be prepared to pay dearly for your health care. For example:

2.10 Sec. 3. [145.986] STATEWIDE HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
2.11 Subdivision 1.Goals. The initial goals of the public health access fund are to reduce
2.12the percent of Minnesotans who are obese or overweight to less than half by the year
2.13 2020 and to reduce tobacco smoking by 2 percent annually starting in 2011. By
2011,
2.14 and considering available funding, the commissioner of health, in consultation with the
2.15 State Community Health Advisory Committee established in section 145A.10, subdivision
2.16 10, and other stakeholders, may make recommendations as to future goals related to
2.17alcohol use and illegal drug use.

Do you smoke? Use alcohol? Overweight? Be prepared to have the state dictate what you can and can not eat, drink or otherwise consume.

Say you are a family of 4 living on $66,000 a year (400% of the federal poverty level). Your cost for "free" government health care will be capped at 8% per year or $5280. If you have employer provided health care you will get a "credit" for the amount of your health care premiums, deductibles and other cost sharing, minus an amount based in the "affordability" specified in section 62U.08. Now for this typical family in that range our premiums, deductables and other cost sharing only amounts to about $2500 a year - net increase in health care premiums of $2780.00. I thought this was supposed to make health care "more affordable"?

It also creates a whole new level of state bureaucracy - the Commission of Health! Just what we need.....more government!

I am just starting to read this 52 page book. Keep an eye for more thoughts and notes here in these pages. But if first impressions are anything, I am not expecting much from this.

Salud!

On Tuesday, I got a very interesting email in the Inbox.

Greetings Congresswoman Betty McCullum,

The School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota is hosting the 4th annual National Public Health Week Film Festival April 7-11, 2008. We’d love for the Congressional Global Health Caucus to be a co-sponsor of our Tuesday, April 8, global heath-themed film, “¡Salude!.” The documentary tells the story of how the cash-strapped country of Cuba has become ‘one of the world’s best health systems.’
In 2007, the Film Festival attracted approx. 500 people. This year, we are please (sic) to announce that the City Pages is the exclusive media sponsor of the Film Festival. The City Pages reaches nearly 130,000 people from the area.
Your participation as a co-sponsor would help ensure this critical public health issue get the attention it deserves.
Here are two things we would ask of you as a co-sponsor:
1. Spread the word. Help us advertise the Film Festival through your network, using various communications tools. This could include announcing it at an upcoming event, listing it in your newsletter, posting it on your organization’s calendar, or hanging or handing our Film Festival flyers.
2. Drive attendance. Ask your staff, board of directors, key stakeholders and constituents to pledge their attendance in support of the Film Festival and environmental health.

In appreciation of being a co-sponsor, we’d:
1. List your organization as a co-sponsor for Monday, April 7, 2008, on the NPHW Film Festival website; www.sph.umn.edu/filmfest08.
2. Provide a table for you to display your organization’s information and other relevant materials in the evening on Monday, April 7. If your organization is looking for volunteers, please feel free to post a sign-up sheet at your table. Students at the University of Minnesota not only want to learn more about an issue, they want to know how they can participate in finding solutions to the problem.
3. Offer a unique venue to raise awareness about environmental health and promote your coop.

The SPH hopes that the Congressional Global Health Caucus will join us in this exciting event. Please feel free to contact me to discuss your participation.

Now I got this email just as Jazz and I were going on the air at MidStream Radio so I mentioned it to Jazz. Jazz and I both expressed amazement in the fact that there was a "Global Health Caucus" (members include Rep. McCollum D-MN, Rep. Vic Snyder D-AR, Rep. Wayne Gilchrist R-MD, Rep. John Boozeman R-AR, Rep. Donna Christensen D-PR and Rep. Michael Simpson R-ID) and we decided that it was an issue worth pursuing at a later time. So today we asked Fausta to come on and talk to us about it (since Fausta's specialty is Central American politics). Luckily for us, Fausta had seen the movie "Salud! What puts Cuba on the map in the quest for global health" last spring at the Princeton Human Rights Film Festival. One of the things that Fausta talked about (you can listen to the podcast here) was how the movie showed Cuban "medicos" (which do not necessarily mean doctors) do make regular house calls.....in the company of members of the Committee of the Revolution! Let me clarify - the medicos are accompanied by a member OF THE GOVERNMENT and that member of the government is there to make sure that you (the person that the medico is checking up on) is not taking illegal drugs or you drink too much or whether you are eating right or not. Again - let me clarify....the medicos bring government officials TO SEARCH YOUR HOUSE to make sure that you are not doing anything unhealthy! That is what government run health care brings to you.

In her post on the movie, Fausta talks about some interactions that audience members had with the vaunted Cuban Health System.

The first member of the audience to speak was a Princeton University student who has travelled to Cuba three times and witnessed the deplorable conditions of a Cuban hospital (dirt, roaches, etc.), which he compared to the deplorable conditions of the pre-Cuban doctor South African hospital shown in the film. While on another trip he also witnessed how a Cuban citizen he rushed to an emergency room was turned away for being Cuban as that hospital only treated foreigners. Another gentleman in the audience had a similar experience where he rushed a very ill Cuban to a hospital in the island and she was turned down because that hospital was for foreigners only.

Another thing that Fausta mentioned on the podcast (at approximately the 21 minute mark) was that AIDS patients are isolated from the community....shunned for having this disease. Oh sure, they are isolated in a "medical facility" but they are not allowed to leave the facility, they do not get visits from family and friends....they are shipped off to the sanitarium to die. To all of my gay friends out there - is that something you want for your friends and loved ones? I know I certainly don't want that for my cousin who has AIDS.....She also talks about how the average Cuban citizen must bring their own linens and medicines and even bandages with them when they check into the hospital. She also reminded us that when Fidel needed a gastro-oncologist last year, he did not use a Cuban doctor.....oh no, he had a specialist flown in from Spain!

Is it any wonder that most thinking people will recoil away from a government health care system once they find out what it is truly like? I mean, if our health care system were so bad, why is it that so many Canadians take out second and third mortgages in order to come to America for their critical health care needs?

On a final note, isn't it comforting to know that this propaganda (and there is no other word for it) is being funded by your tax dollars.

Governor Green Jeans Strikes Again!

Yesterday, our "Republican" governor announced a series of big government initiatives designed to asuage his guilt on man made global warming.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced several initiatives Thursday designed to encourage solar, wind and other renewable energy projects at the local level and to reduce global warming emissions.
He proposed four changes, including one to authorize local governments to issue $10 million to $20 million in revenue bonds to provide low-interest loans to individuals for "microenergy" projects. Those might include installing solar panels to produce hot water, geothermal equipment to heat and cool homes or businesses, or small wind machines to power homes, farms and schools.

Emphasis mine. With all credit to my favorite state legislator, I have a couple of questions for the Governor.....

1) WHERE in the Republican Party of MN platform does it say government should take money from one group of people and give it to another in order to allow them to buy stuff? (all of Section 1)

2) WHERE in the Republican Party of MN platform does it say that Republicans will grow government by adding yet another state bureaucracy? (all of section 8)

3) WHERE in the Republican Party of MN platform does it say that government should use it's bully pulpit to dictate what people can do in their homes or privately owned businesses? (Sect 2.V and Sect 7.K & L)

Now to be fair to our "Republican" Governor, his proposals have been given favorable reviews FROM THE DEMOCRATS!!!!!!

Sen. Ellen Anderson, DFL-St. Paul and chairwoman of the Environment, Energy and
Natural Resources Budget Division, said any proposals to help homeowners afford energy-efficient projects will be popular among legislators.
"The governor's on the right track; there's nothing bad in what he's proposing, but we just need to do more," Anderson said. She and other legislators are formulating a more comprehensive energy and climate plan, she said.

I can not begin to say just how disappointed I am in the Governor. He is making decisions that will adversely affect middle class Minnesotans the hardest and all of it based on on the belief that something we are doing may or may not be warming the planet (I should note that Man Made Global Warming is not proven science - that many people have come forward lately disproving the claims of people like Al Gore and the rest of the global warming zealots).

It is time for the activists of Minnesota to decide....caucuses are in two short weeks! Are you going to stay home and tacitly support this leftward drift or are you going to show up and take back the Republican Party for conservatives!

Now is the time people.....get busy and get to caucus!

Why Government Provided Health Care IS SOOOOO Wrong

Much has been said (in the last 2 years) about health care. All of the Democrats running for President (and most of the ones running for lesser offices) have been advocating some sort of government paid for insurance/health care as part of their official platform. I have written many posts outlining why government insurance/health care is not a good idea and today I have another one (HT Dennis Prager).

Millions of people with arthritis, asthma and even heart failure will be urged to treat themselves as part of a Government plan to save billions of pounds from the NHS budget.
Instead of going to hospital or consulting a doctor, patients will be encouraged to carry out "self care" as the Department of Health (DoH) tries to meet Treasury targets to curb spending.
The guidelines could mean people with chronic conditions:
• Monitoring their own heart activity, blood pressure and lung capacity using equipment installed in the home
• Reporting medical information to doctors remotely by telephone or computer
• Administering their own drugs and other treatment to "manage pain" and assessing the significance of changes in their condition
• Using relaxation techniques to relieve stress and avoid "panic" visits to emergency wards.

The emphasis is mine, and I will explain why that particular one is so very troubling to me.

My mother has been suffering from chronic pain for probably 20 years. She has rheumatoid arthritis, gout, a replacement hip, two knees in need of replacement, hyperthyroidism, heart issues and 7 vertebrae in her neck that are fused together. She is about as "chronic" as you will ever see.

In 2006, she had a physical collapse in her home (she lives alone as my parents are divorced). My sister found her (she had been out of town when the collapse happened) 4 days later at deaths door. We spent Easter weekend in the ICU wondering if she would recover or not! After two weeks of hospitalization for every kind of test under the sun, we had lots of possibilities but no physical reason for her collapse. It remains a mystery to this date. One of the things that her doctors at the hospital had us do was take an inventory of her medications and bring it in to him (to see if it was a drug interaction that caused the problem). Growing up, my sister and I used to joke about mom being a walking pharmacy, but what we found in her home was startling. There were approximately 40 different prescriptions from 3 different pharmacies and many were pain killers. While we don't know for sure if she over medicated, it is a possibility that we had to consider given what we knew.

That is why I find the highlighted passage to be so very disturbing! Encouraging people in chronic pain to self medicate without proper doctor supervision is a recipe for disaster. That person could get behind the wheel of a car (the last thing my mom remembered of that day was driving home from a luncheon with friends) and cause an accident. At the least, they could medicate themselves to death! Aside from that, people don't know about the subtle changes that need to be watched for when dealing with chronic health problems. My mother, being an RN by training, noticed some subtle changes in her breathing and circulation that led to the doctors testing for arterial blockage around the heart (which they found and cleared). If it were not for dealing with her health, I certainly would not have thought that the problems she was having to be worthy of a doctors visit....I probably would have written them off to my allergies or my weight. We are not trained physicians! Even the class on self care that the NHS provides will not be enough to make sure that everything necessary is covered. There are too many variables - ESPECIALLY with the elderly who tend to have multiple health problems.

I do realize that there are problems with our existing system of health care, but that does not mean we should just let the government take over the system. Patients and doctors and insurance carriers and hospitals AND legislators all need to work together in order to improve the system that we have. The system can be fixed, but having government pay for it is NOT the answer at all!

True Choices

Our friends on the left have long claimed to be "pro-choice". However when you look at the record, they are only "pro" the choice to abort an unborn baby. When it comes to choices in other areas though, they ideas seem to be choiceless.

Case in point is the health care "crisis". The answer, according to all of the Democratic Presidential Contenders, to the health care crisis is similar forms of single payer/government run health care. Even in Minnesota our DFL legislators are all responding by proposing a HHS takeover of all Minnesotans medical care. Well today, the House Republican Caucus announced a real choice in the health care "crisis".

2008 HEALTH CARE REFORM INITIATIVES
FREEDOM AND CHOICE
It is a matter of personal responsibility to control your own health care.
Patients should be allowed to choose their health plan and doctor, and have a say in their care.
No mandate requiring everyone to have insurance.
Allow nationwide purchasing of any approved health care plan. This will promote nationwide competition, innovative plans, and lessened costs.
Provide individual tax credits/deductions to promote non-employer coverage, on a sliding scale.
Promote and expand information on cost of services and quality of care available to consumers.
PRIVACY AND SECURITY
Require patient consent to disseminate medical records.
Create a medical data bank in the consumer's wallet with e-health care cards with medical information. No hackers, no prying eyes on private information.
Portability is increased with individual insurance policies so consumers won't lose insurance if they lose their jobs.
Promote and enhance ongoing market-based reforms including evidence-based and value oriented medical information.
Create a tort court to assure quality of care, minimize defensive medicine, provide fair compensation to injured parties, standardize patient expectations and provider practices, and preserve statewide access to emergency room and obstetric services.
NO GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER OF HEALTH CARE
No government-directed rationing and no "Big Brother" decisions.
No months-long waiting lines like in Canada and Europe.
Maintain a safety net for those in need. Promote greater results in state programs, which will spill over into the private sector.
Make it easier for personal purchase of insurance where possible. Optional section 125 plans should be made easily available through agents, brokers and a voluntary
Insurance Exchange.
Shift state plan enrollees where possible to private plans via health care vouchers and/or tax credits.
FUNDING MECHANISMS
Reduce growth rate in Health and Human Services to the rate of inflation for one biennium. The Department functions are so vast that no one person can know all the overlaps and duplicated services that exist.
Create a statewide process to prioritize Human Services funding to address essential and important needs.
Use that source to fund tax credits, tax deductions, repeal of health taxes, including the Provider Tax, and other pressing needs, like the gap created by the Federal rule changes on targeted case management.
Increased consumer responsibility and engagement creates increased market pressure on prices and quality and reduces costs and increases quality, increasing affordability.
Follow the law: no increased state funding for illegal immigrants.

Choice - that's what it is all about...the choice to find the health plan that fits you and your needs. Your choice of plan, doctor and anything else you need without government interference or (most importantly) some bureaucrat telling you and your doctor what services he/she will provide to you and when.

If you want to know why choice is prefereable, you can read my previous posts on the subject.

Happy Carcinogenic Thanksgiving…chow down!

A Thanksgiving wish from Sue Jeffers.

A carcinogen is defined as a substance that at high doses causes cancer in lab animals. These turkey day favorites can all be defined as carcinogens.
· hydrazines (mushroom soup);
* aniline, caffeic acid, benzaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, quercetin glycosides and psoralens (your fresh vegetable salad);
* heterocyclic amines, acrylamide, benzo(a)pyrene, ethyl carbamate, dihydrazines, d-limonene, safrole and quercetin glycosides (roast turkey with stuffing);
* benzene and heterocyclic amines (prime rib of beef with parsley sauce);
* Murfural, ethyl alcohol, allyl isothiocyanate (broccoli, potatoes, sweet potatoes);
* coumarin, methyl eugenol, acetaldehyde, estragole and safrole (apple and pumpkin pies);
* ethyl alcohol with ethyl carbamate (red and white wines).
*benzofuran, caffeic acid, catechol, l,2,5,6,-dibenz(a)anthra- cene with 4-methylcatechol (coffee).

You also consumed a few poisons…solanine, arsenic and chaconine in potatoes. Hydrogen cyanide in lima beans and the hallucinogenic compound myristicin found in nutmeg, black pepper and carrots.

Shouldn't our state legislators get on this? Of course not! All are carcinogens and all are produced by Mother Nature. But before the scary headlines from the latest junk science by press conference fraud appear let me tell you that you are all safe. The dose is the poison.

By next year our hyper-sensitive legislators might have banned smoking outdoors and in private homes, instituted smoking cameras issuing tickets by mail and fighting the dreaded second hand fat.

To all, may God bless you and yours and have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

The New Front in Nanny Statism

Expect this to become the newest front in the Nanny state's battle against personal responsibility.

"An Associated Press examination of states' vaccination records and data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that many states are seeing increases in the rate of religious exemptions claimed for kindergartners.
"Do I think that religious exemptions have become the default? Absolutely," said Dr.
Paul Offit, head of infectious diseases at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia and one of the harshest critics of the anti-vaccine movement. He said the resistance to vaccines is "an irrational, fear-based decision."

There are legit religious reasons to object to vaccinations if you are of that particular faith (which I am not BTW). I personally believe that all of the inventions and progress we have made are due to the talent that God has infused into each and every one of us. I also recognize that there is a greater good that is served by the innoculations. As the article states...

But public health officials say it takes only a few people to cause an
outbreak that can put large numbers of lives at risk.

However, what worries me is this attitude.

"When you choose not to get a vaccine, you're not just making a choice for yourself, you're making a choice for the person sitting next to you," said Dr. Lance Rodewald, director of the CDC's Immunization Services Division."

Now if immunizations work, then the only people a non-vaccinated person will affect would be another non-immunized person right? Not necessarily and that goes to the crux of what the people who are against the vaccines are saying. I know a couple of people in this "movement" and their reasoning (again, I don't fully agree with it but I understand it) for not vaccinating their children stems from the possible side effects that these drugs have. Now if you have ever seen any of the advertisements for new drugs you have no doubt see the long list of potential side effects - some of which can be calamitous. Their argument is certainly compelling.

Captain Ed interviewed David Harsanyi, the author of "Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children" on his Blog Talk Radio program today. While most of their discussion turned to centered on food choices and exercise in the realm of universal health care, the vaccine issue certainly could fit into the discussion. If the government is paying for "your" health care there is certainly no reason why they can not (or will not) tell you what vaccinations that you will be required to take (since the vaccine is cheaper than paying for the cure to the disease).

We have this think in the Constitution called the "Establishment Clause". Universal healthcare forcing immunizations on specific religions will fall in direct violation of the Establishment Clause. This will be one more thing that will need to be ironed out before Universal Healthcare becomes a reality.

Governor Green Jeans

Governor Pawlenty has (in case you haven't noticed) bought into the Global Warming hype hook, line and sinker. Using his pulpit as Chairman of the National Governor's Association he has instituted an initiative to broaden the nation's use of biofuels, regardless of whether they are best for the country or not! He has even gone so far (in defense of his initiative) to attack his fellow Republicans.

He’s hardly alone. At a summer’s gathering with reporters in Washington,
Minnesota Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty seemed at a loss to explain how
Republicans in Washington could still be quibbling over the reality of global
warming when the party’s governors, including Pawlenty and California’s Arnold
Schwarzenegger, were passing groundbreaking legislation to combat it.

“The false premise of some of the critics is that you’ll wreck the economy,” Pawlenty said, a shot aimed mostly at his own Republican colleagues.

Well now Governor Green Jeans is set to launch (with the help of Governor Schwarzenegger and Georgia's Governor Sonny Perdue) a re-branding of Republicanism - a re-branding that will make Conservatives nauseous.

Fearing additional losses in 2008 among their own ranks, Republican
governors are trying to wrest control of the party’s re-branding campaign away
from their Washington brethren....

Next month, a small group of governors spearheading the effort will gather
in Atlanta to begin exploring new policy positions on energy, conservation,
education and health care that they believe are more attuned with public
concerns and doable at the legislative level.

The summit also will include a host of senior aides with expertise in policy, politics and communications who will be vital to translating the broad ideas into substantive legislative advances on the ground quickly.The tug of war between the party’s state and federal factions reflects continuing disagreement within the party about how to regain voter appeal and avoid another round of crushing Election Day losses.

What these governors don't seem to get is that the people WANT a candidate of principle. If you take a look at the 2006 elections, principled candidates like Michelle Bachmann won where other Republicans lost. Governor Pawlenty barely won because most of his base stayed home on election day! Every single one of the issues that these Governors are proposing are issues that are to the left of where a principled Republican would stand. They are proposing more spending on education, instead of accountable spending on education, "universal" health care - expanded S-CHIPS spending for people who are far from poor.

They are calling on "moderation" of ideals and principles instead of talking about principles and what is best for the country! Governor Green Jeans and his cohorts have shown that they don't care about anything other than winning elections. They don't care about the tax payers, they don't care about principles...all they care about is winning elections...to make sure they don't lose anymore Governors seats!

They are willing to sell out their principles and our wallets in order to retain and even gain power. Is that what you, as a voter, want? Or do you want a politician that stands (as Senator Paul Wellstone did) on his or her principles.

"Fat" Government

The folks that want to control how you live, what you drive and what you eat are at it again. This time in Britian where they are pushing a "fat tax". (H/T: the Logical Husband)

"Researchers at Oxford University say that charging Value Added Tax (VAT) at 17.5 percent on foods deemed to be unhealthy would cut consumer demand and reduce the number of heart attacks and strokes."

Now I have struggled with my weight all of my life. It is not something to brag about - I am stating this as a fact. Part of it is lifestyle choices, I will admit, and I am trying to make better choices - less fat, controlling my intake of "bad" carbs, walking the stairs instead of taking the elevator, but another part of of the problem IS genetics. That is something that Nanny State government can not control! Both of my parents have weight problems, my grandparents have weight problems on and on and on.

"Sin" taxes (taxes on cigarettes and liquor for example) have been around for as long as the sins have. The rationale has always been "If we add a supplimentary tax to it, people will stop using it" How wrong can you be! "Sin" taxes have done nothing more than line the pockets of money hungry politicians who want nothing more than to control how you live. Is that a life you want to lead? Or would you rather put the fat, bloated government on a "diet"?

What is wrong with this?

What is wrong with this sentence?

"Nearly 25,000 "nonessential" state employees were put on temporary furlough without pay at 12:01 a.m. today..."

When you have 25,000 employees that you can do without do you suppose you have too many employees?

National Lifeguards

All hail our national lifeguards....whatever would we do without them.

"On Friday, two members of Minnesota's congressional delegation, Rep. Jim Ramstad and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, called for passage of a federal pool safety law to prevent such accidents in the future."

Now what happened here is no doubt a tragedy. However, the place to settle this is in the courts and not in the federal legislature. It is my hope that the parents of this little girl sue the operators of the pool and if they are found to be negligent in maintaining the pool, I hope the family gets the money that it will need to take care of this girl for the rest of her natural life! It is my hope that the insurance company does the right thing and covers the girls medical care needs. And in the end, knowing this state, that will happen - one way or another.

The fact that Amy Klobuchar is behind this is not surprising. She has built a career on exploiting tragedies like this. Jim Ramstad is not a surprise either, but it is a disappointment. If you look up the defination of RINO (Republican in Name only) in the dictionary, you will see a picture of the Representative of Minnesota's 3rd Congressional District. He is a very real reason why there is discord in the MNGOP.

It would be nice to see Rep. Ramstad come back around to the small government philosophy that is supposed to be a Republican hallmark. Maybe his constituents can help with that. Then again, maybe his district does think that government is the be all and end all. If that is the case...

A vacation is all I ever wanted.

The Star Tribune never fails to provide us with examples of their agenda driven reporting. Today's example comes from yesterday's paper.

The Strib does a quick little fluff piece on a study done by the Center for Economic Policy Research entitled "No Vacation Nation". In the piece, the Strib echo's the study's call for government mandated vacation time.

"While other countries guarantee time off from jobs -- Finland 39 days a year, Canada 18 and Japan 10 -- U.S. law gives workers a right to zero days off, even for holidays."

To heck with incentive to attract and keep the best employees, every one should be guaranteed a paid vacation....OK.

Now, we have to ask, what do we know about the CEPR. Well they are DC based and some of their financial backers include groups like the Arca Foundation (whose other grantees include the People for the American Way, the Progressive America Fund and the Progressive Populist Education Fund), the Nathan Cummings Foundation (whose grantees include the ACLU Freedom Network, the Los Angeles Poverty Foundation and National Public Radio) and The Open Society Institute - George Soros' Foundation.

So it appears that this "drive" by the Star Tribune to have the government tell business how much vacation they must provide is sponsored by the usual pro-socialist suspects. Why do I not find that surprising.