Christmas Eve is a sacred time where those who align themselves with Jesus Christ gather to celebrate the birth of their Savior. Those of the Jewish faith celebrate Hanukkah (sorry if I missed your religion, time and space!). It's a time where little else can distract you from sharing precious family moments, faith and blessings. Unless of course, you're a politician hoping to play Santa Claus with no one watching!
For example, presidential pardons date back to the 1800's and Christmas Eve pardons seem to have become a tradition. Casper Weinberger and five others tied to Iran-Contra were pardoned on Christmas Eve 1992 by President George H.W. Bush. Like President Bush, with one foot out the door in 2001 President Clinton pardoned nearly as many people in one day than President Bush had in eight years, among the most notorious was Marc Rich, a fugitive financier with close financial ties to the Democratic Party. These pardons transcend political lines. The key is the news cycle. Who's really watching on Christmas Eve?
In his first term in office President Obama was not so gratuitous with a single pardon, but he gave away much more that. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two organizations who played a substantial role in our current economic crisis were given an unbelievable gift. Under the current economic stimulus plan both agencies were tied to a funding cap of $200 million. President Santa Claus lifted that cap. The new cap? Unlimited! Merry Christmas Fannie and Freddie! Spend all you want, we'll print more!
The role of these two agencies in our economy's meltdown is alarming. Enter the phrase "fannie mae freddie mac role in financial crisis" into your favorite search engine, specify "video" under criteria and view the videos at your leisure. You will see both Democrats and Republicans warning of the dangers we faced if these agencies were not reigned in and closely watched.
Democrat Maxine Waters declared there was no need for tighter regulation, and further categorized the leadership of Franklin Raines as "outstanding". History has proven otherwise. Without going to go into great detail, you'll have plenty of information to reach your own conclusions. My point is that the calls for more scrutiny and tighter regulation go back to the Clinton administration, yet in spite of these warnings regulations were eased, reserve requirements were lowered, sub-standard loans were made in record numbers and the house of cards toppled under the slightest of breezes. The ultimate insult to the taxpayer? Raines leaves under a multi-million dollar golden parachute. Couldn't we all be that lucky?
Therefore my only question to President Obama is - WHY? What legitimate reason do we have to turn the entire hen house over to the den of foxes? Unfortunately I don't have the answer. Naturally I have suspicions but my fear is they are unpalatable to most readers. What' your take?
Next: Entitlement Reform vs. Health Care Reform
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Monday, January 4, 2010
Should Abortion Be Part of the Health Care Debate?
In my previous post I stated that my intent is not to come down on either side of this issue, but to provide facts and allow you to make your own decisions. First, here are facts as provided by the Guttmacher Institute (GI) in their July 2008 report Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States:
Let's summarize this dilemma. Foremost, I found it interesting that GI supports what right to life groups have been stating for years, that 1% (or fewer) of all abortions were the result of forced sex. Does that mean 99% were not the result of forced sex? Lets check - 46% used no contraceptive methods whatsoever, 33% thought they'd never get pregnant and 26% said, "I know I'm not using contraceptives, I don't really know (or care) where I'm at with my monthly biological clock, but this guy's smokin' hot so here it goes!"
How's the math work out? 46+33+26=105%! OK, so the Guttmacher Institute counts and reports, but they certainly don't add very well. Can we give them a mulligan for now?
Regardless of your position on the act of abortion, we've already determined the economic impact to Social Security alone is at least $450 billion dollars. We did not even factor other financial benefits into the equation, such as purchasing homes, cars, clothing, food, paying for education and our affinity for Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts coffee. Gosh that's got to be billions there right? How much revenue is this draining from the economy?
Opponents to this rational thought process have actually written how much abortion has saved the economy through welfare benefits not being paid, food stamps not being issued, costs not being incurred in criminal prosecutions and incarcerations, criminal acts and resulting losses not being inflicted on victims, blah blah blah. This rhetoric assumes that every one of the 48 million plus abortions would have become the dregs of society. In compiling the data in my previous post I factored into the equation that 20% of the aborted babies would not become productive members of society, and in my opinion that's more than fair.
Now to the abortion industry itself. The most recent numbers I've uncovered on Planned Parenthood (PP) alone are $1 billion in revenues, with 30% of that revenue provided by the federal government. Notwithstanding PP's questionable tactics in providing the services is the strategic location of their clinics. Statistics from GI and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reveal that the overwhelming majority of their clinics are in metropolitan areas. Independent studies have also suggested that upwards of 75% of the PP clinics are in predominantly minority neighborhoods.
These facts could possibly substantiate allegations of racism levied against PP's Margaret Sanger. I recently read an article in the Washington Post simply titled The Abortion Industry. I'll quote these two paragraphs so I'm not taken out of context:
"It is well known that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, aligned herself with the eugenicists concerned with eliminating undesirables from the population. Moreover, Sanger received and accepted an invitation to address a Ku Klux Klan chapter and gave a speech that led to additional Klan invitations. Although we do not know what she said, we do know that recently questions have been raised about racism at Planned Parenthood clinics.
"Documented in a widely-circulated recording and transcript, a UCLA student researcher for a pro-life magazine hired a professional actor in February 2008 to call Planned Parenthood clinics around the country, offering donations to "lower the number of black people" by targeting black babies for abortion. She found Planned Parenthood clinics in seven states that agreed to take the monies. Not one Planned Parenthood employee objected to the caller's racist remarks or purposes."
Furthermore, do your own web search on the term "how much money is made by the abortion industry" and analyze the results. I was surprised by the number of people who boast of $150k incomes simply by making abortion referrals.
Whether you agree or disagree with PP's possible motives, or those acting as agents earning abortion commissions is not the issue. The issue is should our tax dollars be paying for abortions, directly or indirectly? Should abortion even be part of the health care debate?
Next: Should President Obama have lifted the stimulus cap from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
- 22% of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.
- About 60% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.
- Women who have never married obtain two-thirds of all abortions.
- Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in ten of these are terminated by abortion.
Let's summarize this dilemma. Foremost, I found it interesting that GI supports what right to life groups have been stating for years, that 1% (or fewer) of all abortions were the result of forced sex. Does that mean 99% were not the result of forced sex? Lets check - 46% used no contraceptive methods whatsoever, 33% thought they'd never get pregnant and 26% said, "I know I'm not using contraceptives, I don't really know (or care) where I'm at with my monthly biological clock, but this guy's smokin' hot so here it goes!"
How's the math work out? 46+33+26=105%! OK, so the Guttmacher Institute counts and reports, but they certainly don't add very well. Can we give them a mulligan for now?
Regardless of your position on the act of abortion, we've already determined the economic impact to Social Security alone is at least $450 billion dollars. We did not even factor other financial benefits into the equation, such as purchasing homes, cars, clothing, food, paying for education and our affinity for Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts coffee. Gosh that's got to be billions there right? How much revenue is this draining from the economy?
Opponents to this rational thought process have actually written how much abortion has saved the economy through welfare benefits not being paid, food stamps not being issued, costs not being incurred in criminal prosecutions and incarcerations, criminal acts and resulting losses not being inflicted on victims, blah blah blah. This rhetoric assumes that every one of the 48 million plus abortions would have become the dregs of society. In compiling the data in my previous post I factored into the equation that 20% of the aborted babies would not become productive members of society, and in my opinion that's more than fair.
Now to the abortion industry itself. The most recent numbers I've uncovered on Planned Parenthood (PP) alone are $1 billion in revenues, with 30% of that revenue provided by the federal government. Notwithstanding PP's questionable tactics in providing the services is the strategic location of their clinics. Statistics from GI and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reveal that the overwhelming majority of their clinics are in metropolitan areas. Independent studies have also suggested that upwards of 75% of the PP clinics are in predominantly minority neighborhoods.
These facts could possibly substantiate allegations of racism levied against PP's Margaret Sanger. I recently read an article in the Washington Post simply titled The Abortion Industry. I'll quote these two paragraphs so I'm not taken out of context:
"It is well known that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, aligned herself with the eugenicists concerned with eliminating undesirables from the population. Moreover, Sanger received and accepted an invitation to address a Ku Klux Klan chapter and gave a speech that led to additional Klan invitations. Although we do not know what she said, we do know that recently questions have been raised about racism at Planned Parenthood clinics.
"Documented in a widely-circulated recording and transcript, a UCLA student researcher for a pro-life magazine hired a professional actor in February 2008 to call Planned Parenthood clinics around the country, offering donations to "lower the number of black people" by targeting black babies for abortion. She found Planned Parenthood clinics in seven states that agreed to take the monies. Not one Planned Parenthood employee objected to the caller's racist remarks or purposes."
Furthermore, do your own web search on the term "how much money is made by the abortion industry" and analyze the results. I was surprised by the number of people who boast of $150k incomes simply by making abortion referrals.
Whether you agree or disagree with PP's possible motives, or those acting as agents earning abortion commissions is not the issue. The issue is should our tax dollars be paying for abortions, directly or indirectly? Should abortion even be part of the health care debate?
Next: Should President Obama have lifted the stimulus cap from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
The Impact of Abortion on Social Security
There is plenty of discussion on the topic of abortion in our society today. In this post I'm not attempting to land on either side of the issue, but simply look at the economics as the subject relates to Social Security.
Since Roe v. Wade became the law of the land in 1973, estimates range from 48 million to 52 million abortions have been performed. Most of these figures are provided by the Guttmacher Institute, whose founder Alan Guttmacher was the former President of Planned Parenthood, Inc. Even Guttmacher estimates that 3% to 6% of abortions are not counted or reported so the true number is potentially higher. Additionally, some states such as Alaska, California, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and West Virginia do not provide data for the purpose of federal reporting. Accordingly the number could conceivably be as high as 60 million or more.
Recently I did some number crunching and was alarmed at what I believe to be conservative estimates. In arriving at my calculations I relied on government provided data and made only a few assumptions:
Now I'm neither a mathematician nor an economist, but I am very efficient with research and extremely proficient with spreadsheets. Therefore my challenge to anyone reading this blog is if you don't agree, or if you have better or more accurate data please prove me wrong!
Again, keep in mind that the intent of this post is not to come down on either side of the issue. In the past I've frequently posed the question as to where Social Security would be without that lost revenue. Now that I have a better grasp on the financial impact I'll be writing on similar topics.
Next: Should abortion even be a part of the pending health care debate?
Since Roe v. Wade became the law of the land in 1973, estimates range from 48 million to 52 million abortions have been performed. Most of these figures are provided by the Guttmacher Institute, whose founder Alan Guttmacher was the former President of Planned Parenthood, Inc. Even Guttmacher estimates that 3% to 6% of abortions are not counted or reported so the true number is potentially higher. Additionally, some states such as Alaska, California, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and West Virginia do not provide data for the purpose of federal reporting. Accordingly the number could conceivably be as high as 60 million or more.
Recently I did some number crunching and was alarmed at what I believe to be conservative estimates. In arriving at my calculations I relied on government provided data and made only a few assumptions:
- Of all babies aborted since 1973 I allowed 20 years to begin working,
- Not everyone will become a productive member of society for many reasons so I reduced all my projections by 20%,
- If someone aborted in 1973 had the opportunity to begin working in 1993 they would have worked 16 years; born in 1974, worked 15 years and so on,
- U.S. Treasury data on median individual income was used.
Now I'm neither a mathematician nor an economist, but I am very efficient with research and extremely proficient with spreadsheets. Therefore my challenge to anyone reading this blog is if you don't agree, or if you have better or more accurate data please prove me wrong!
Again, keep in mind that the intent of this post is not to come down on either side of the issue. In the past I've frequently posed the question as to where Social Security would be without that lost revenue. Now that I have a better grasp on the financial impact I'll be writing on similar topics.
Next: Should abortion even be a part of the pending health care debate?
Friday, January 1, 2010
Resolutions?
I don't believe in New Year's Resolutions. If I did, it would be to follow through on what I signed up for and started two years ago - blogging on what concerns me in America. Stay tuned . . .
Is Health Care Reform Really Necessary?
Public opinion polls continue to reveal that the majority of Americans are opposed to the current bills passed by both the House and Senate. There is adequate information posted elsewhere that this blog does not need to go into the detail of the pork, political paybacks and special interest favors packed into this 2,200 page behemoth bill.
However, what's the issue that really needs to be addressed that is completely ignored? TORT REFORM!
The legal industry is somehow flying under the radar on this issue. Legal costs associated with health care are skyrocketing at rates that nearly double the cost of medical products and services. Why? Because it's just too easy to file a frivolous lawsuit and be compensated.
I'm not denying that there are many valid cases where medical providers should be sued. Removing the wrong kidney, amputating the wrong limb and a long list of inexcusable mistakes should never be condoned, and should always be pursued to their resolution. But allow me to share a recent example of how absurd the process and industry has become.
A friend of mine sat on a jury for what he believed to be a frivolous malpractice case. The physician being sued had a stellar 35 year record and excellent standing in the community. He provided free health care for many, and reduced rates for others who fell on hard times. His patient sued for an obscure post operative complication that caused very little pain and was really quite insignificant.
In prosecuting the case the plaintiff's attorney presented a checklist of nearly 50 items, of which the physician might reasonably be expected to complete 20 to 30 in order to make the correct diagnosis, perform a corrective procedure and follow through to recovery. Because of the demands of the patient and his family the doctor completed every item but neglected just one. Accordingly, the judge instructed the jury that in his opinion they had no choice but to find the doctor guilty, which they reluctantly did.
During the penalty phase the jury concurred they felt the case was indeed frivolous, and they also believed they had been bullied by the judge. But they also had the latitude to determine zero to infinity for damages. They decided to award the plaintiff $5,000, and even that amount was untenable to most on the jury.
Several months later my friend read an article in the local newspaper. The plaintiff appealed the award and was granted an additional $78,000 for his legal fees incurred prosecuting the case. Apparently the trial judge was so quick to impose his form of justice he neglected to instruct the jury that state law required the plaintiff's legal fees to be recovered.
In summary, what took place was a man had a routine procedure, suffered a minor post operative complication that was immediately remedied. His doctor was required to pay $5,000, which he did. He chose to pay it out of pocket rather than file a claim against his malpractice insurance.
However, now faced with an additional $78,000 judgment he felt he had no choice but to file the claim. His carrier paid the assessment, but having also paid his legal fee of nearly $100,000 they subsequently doubled the doctor's malpractice premiums. The doctor, absolutely disgusted with the outcome decided to retire. The community lost:
So what's your point Steve? Laws are created by lawyers, interpreted by lawyers and mostly benefit lawyers! Our present Congress, between the House of Representatives and the Senate is comprised of . . . you guessed it . . . 44% lawyers! Four of our past eight presidents are/were lawyers (Nixon, Ford, Clinton, Obama). Why would the Good Ole Boys Club ever want to change anything adversely impacting their industry? We have 5% of the world's population, 80% of the world's wealth (until it's effectively transferred to Mother Europe) and 90% of the world's lawyers.
In closing this post, not all lawyers are bad, just most of them. Not bad at what they do, they are bad, deceitful people without honor.
Consider this scenario - If we had a legal system which required a plaintiff to pay the costs of the defendant if their suit did not prevail, how many frivolous suits would be filed? In the above case that's actually what happened, but may not have if the trial judge did not exert undue influence on the jury. Had the jury been able to render a verdict without being intimidated by the judge they may very well have found the doctor not guilty. That being the case, if you were a plaintiff and knew it might cost you $75k to prosecute a case you had a slim chance of winning, would you spend the money, even for a $5,000 return?
In conclusion, the resolution to our nation's health care dilemma is far too complicated to legislate. Legislation will incur hundreds of millions in new taxes, create another new and unnecessary government bureaucracy, add to our unemployment statistics as thousands of small businesses will close their doors because they simply cannot absorb one more dime in overhead.
Wouldn't it be ironic if the majority of people put out of business by health care legislation were lawyers?
Not only do I know this account to be true, I had back surgery in 2000, and my neurosurgeon Dr. Richard Mendel informed me he would be moving to South Carolina because of the cost of rising malpractice insurance. More significantly, I had the surgery knowing he was moving because I believed in him.
Granted there are certainly many areas of our health care system that need repair and overhaul, but until we fix the underlying legal issues nothing else matters.
However, what's the issue that really needs to be addressed that is completely ignored? TORT REFORM!
The legal industry is somehow flying under the radar on this issue. Legal costs associated with health care are skyrocketing at rates that nearly double the cost of medical products and services. Why? Because it's just too easy to file a frivolous lawsuit and be compensated.
I'm not denying that there are many valid cases where medical providers should be sued. Removing the wrong kidney, amputating the wrong limb and a long list of inexcusable mistakes should never be condoned, and should always be pursued to their resolution. But allow me to share a recent example of how absurd the process and industry has become.
A friend of mine sat on a jury for what he believed to be a frivolous malpractice case. The physician being sued had a stellar 35 year record and excellent standing in the community. He provided free health care for many, and reduced rates for others who fell on hard times. His patient sued for an obscure post operative complication that caused very little pain and was really quite insignificant.
In prosecuting the case the plaintiff's attorney presented a checklist of nearly 50 items, of which the physician might reasonably be expected to complete 20 to 30 in order to make the correct diagnosis, perform a corrective procedure and follow through to recovery. Because of the demands of the patient and his family the doctor completed every item but neglected just one. Accordingly, the judge instructed the jury that in his opinion they had no choice but to find the doctor guilty, which they reluctantly did.
During the penalty phase the jury concurred they felt the case was indeed frivolous, and they also believed they had been bullied by the judge. But they also had the latitude to determine zero to infinity for damages. They decided to award the plaintiff $5,000, and even that amount was untenable to most on the jury.
Several months later my friend read an article in the local newspaper. The plaintiff appealed the award and was granted an additional $78,000 for his legal fees incurred prosecuting the case. Apparently the trial judge was so quick to impose his form of justice he neglected to instruct the jury that state law required the plaintiff's legal fees to be recovered.
In summary, what took place was a man had a routine procedure, suffered a minor post operative complication that was immediately remedied. His doctor was required to pay $5,000, which he did. He chose to pay it out of pocket rather than file a claim against his malpractice insurance.
However, now faced with an additional $78,000 judgment he felt he had no choice but to file the claim. His carrier paid the assessment, but having also paid his legal fee of nearly $100,000 they subsequently doubled the doctor's malpractice premiums. The doctor, absolutely disgusted with the outcome decided to retire. The community lost:
- A true health care professional,
- A philanthropic pillar of the community for 35 years,
- The tax base generated by his own income,
- The tax base generated by the income of eight employees who were forced to find employment elsewhere.
So what's your point Steve? Laws are created by lawyers, interpreted by lawyers and mostly benefit lawyers! Our present Congress, between the House of Representatives and the Senate is comprised of . . . you guessed it . . . 44% lawyers! Four of our past eight presidents are/were lawyers (Nixon, Ford, Clinton, Obama). Why would the Good Ole Boys Club ever want to change anything adversely impacting their industry? We have 5% of the world's population, 80% of the world's wealth (until it's effectively transferred to Mother Europe) and 90% of the world's lawyers.
In closing this post, not all lawyers are bad, just most of them. Not bad at what they do, they are bad, deceitful people without honor.
Consider this scenario - If we had a legal system which required a plaintiff to pay the costs of the defendant if their suit did not prevail, how many frivolous suits would be filed? In the above case that's actually what happened, but may not have if the trial judge did not exert undue influence on the jury. Had the jury been able to render a verdict without being intimidated by the judge they may very well have found the doctor not guilty. That being the case, if you were a plaintiff and knew it might cost you $75k to prosecute a case you had a slim chance of winning, would you spend the money, even for a $5,000 return?
In conclusion, the resolution to our nation's health care dilemma is far too complicated to legislate. Legislation will incur hundreds of millions in new taxes, create another new and unnecessary government bureaucracy, add to our unemployment statistics as thousands of small businesses will close their doors because they simply cannot absorb one more dime in overhead.
Wouldn't it be ironic if the majority of people put out of business by health care legislation were lawyers?
Not only do I know this account to be true, I had back surgery in 2000, and my neurosurgeon Dr. Richard Mendel informed me he would be moving to South Carolina because of the cost of rising malpractice insurance. More significantly, I had the surgery knowing he was moving because I believed in him.
Granted there are certainly many areas of our health care system that need repair and overhaul, but until we fix the underlying legal issues nothing else matters.
Is President Obama a Muslim?
President Obama has professed to be a member of the Christian faith. When examining his relationship with both Reverends Wright and Pfluger, one has to wonder if the very controversial statements attributed to both men represent the type of Biblical faith pleasing to God.
Let's put those questions aside for just a moment. In his speech on Afghanistan made at West Point, referring to the hijackers of 911 the President stated, "As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents."
Wait a minute! Did I just hear what I thought I heard? Am I the only one who caught this statement? Yes folks, these are the very words of President Barack Hussein Obama! Do they concern you? Is there a single rational thinking Biblical Christian who would call Islam one of the great religions of the world?
As we know, the Bible states that a tree is judged by the fruit it bears. I believe this tree needs pruning, and the only place that can occur is the voting booth.
Let's put those questions aside for just a moment. In his speech on Afghanistan made at West Point, referring to the hijackers of 911 the President stated, "As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents."
Wait a minute! Did I just hear what I thought I heard? Am I the only one who caught this statement? Yes folks, these are the very words of President Barack Hussein Obama! Do they concern you? Is there a single rational thinking Biblical Christian who would call Islam one of the great religions of the world?
As we know, the Bible states that a tree is judged by the fruit it bears. I believe this tree needs pruning, and the only place that can occur is the voting booth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
