Sunday, June 28, 2009
The future - a direct result of this bill - is that much more grim (click on the image to enlarge it):
Here's the enraging news. Keep in mind, this is a Congressionally induced depression.
• Of the eleven congressional districts in Virginia as seen above, the Ninth, Boucher's, ranks number 2 in projected GSP (Gross State Product) loss in the year 2012, behind only the fabulously wealthy Washington D.C. suburbs. Again this ranking is in dollars lost, not in percent of loss. In terms of GSP percent of loss, northern Virginia, with its riches, will barely feel the pain.
But a $646 million reduction in economic output here will be staggering.
• When Boucher's cap-and-tax legislation really starts kicking in, when wealth transfer will begin to bite, the economic implosion will be gargantuan. Between 2012 and 2035 GSP loss in the area will reach over a billion and a quarter dollars ($1,287,200,000). This, again, ranks just behind affluent northern Virginia but far exceeds the losses to be incurred in every other part of the state.
• Personal income loss will be devastating as well. Again second in dollars, Southwest Virginians can expect to lose $592 million in personal income in the year 2012 alone. This to theoretically lower the planet's atmospheric temperature by 0.2° fahrenheit. This will come about mostly through layoffs and job terminations as the coalfields begin to shut down.
• And what can we expect in the way of employment impact from this bill? Southwest Virginia, particularly in its coal counties of Russell, Scott, Wise, Tazewell, Dickenson, and Lee is projected to lose 5,483 jobs.
5,483 jobs lost ...
... In 2012 alone.
... The highest number in the entire state.
... In the poorest part of the commonwealth.
... In the poorest region in the United States.
• Between 2012 and 2035 Boucher's district will continue to lead the state in job losses with an estimated 3,439 in that time period. This will hold true if all else remains the same. If the woeful economic conditions currently being experienced here get no worse. If Boucher and his insane cronies in Washington don't dream up any other crushing mandates - nationalized health care! - that will send the region into an accelerated slide.
Remember this: Rick Boucher could have fought this. He knew what was in store for his constituents if he let it pass. Well folks, he not only let it pass, he became a supporter of the legislation, and worked hard to get it through the House. He voted on Friday in favor of the above.
Rick Boucher voted to reduce the economy of Southwest Virginia by nearly 2 billion dollars over the next two decades.
Rick Boucher voted in favor of 8,922 of his constituents being thrown out of work. Forever.
He accepts enthusiastically (he did fight for passage, don't forget) the estimated $900 million in personal income losses that are coming our way.
Boucher's excuse? It was "inevitable." So he gave in to his buddies there in La La Land without a fight.
But why should he care? He's there. There is far from here. Why would he give two squirts what happens down here in this backward, smelly, disease-infested, poverty-stricken, God-forsaken part of the land? Why should he care? He's in D.C. He's important. He's liked. He's got juice.
We're just a distant memory.
We're just a grudging nuissance that he has to tolerate at election time every other year.
If it weren't for that bit of annoyance, it's a certainty that he'd never set foot in this part of the country again.
You read here the other day a quote from Mr. Boucher about how his bill was going to produce millions of new jobs. Well, the facts are in. For all to see. And facts, unlike deceitful politicians, don't lie. Rick Boucher has signed on to a bill that is going to cripple Southwest Virginia like at no time in its history.
Maybe at the next tea party down in Abingdon he should be asked which ones of us he intends to make destitute with this legislation. Which 8,922 of us. Which of us he's willing to look in the eyes and spout that bullshit about millions of new jobs.
To think, had we anyone else representing us in Washington last week, chances would have been excellent that 8,922 Southwest Virginians would not have to soon be looking for a U-haul rental and a job up north.
Something to consider. Something to remember come judgment day.
While I was tempted to go after this stupid woman who argues that Kate and Jon (if you don't know who they are, you're probably better off) might have been able to save their marriage had they only had access to better health insurance (read: government insurance), I avoided it because, well, it's just absolutely stupid. What she fails to grasp in her orgasmic attraction to all Obama utterances is the fact that when nationalized health care is finally enacted, rationing of services will necessarily ensue. And the first item on the agenda of axed services will be the kind of exotic in vitro manipulation that she says Kate should have been able to enjoy. Which would have saved her marriage. This despite the fact that both she and her husband were cheating on each other like crazy.
It's that stupid.
So we move on.
Here's some sane reckoning on the subject of health care from a smart man, George Will:
Most Americans do want different health care: They want 2009 medicine at 1960 prices. Americans spent much less on health care in 1960 (5 percent of gross domestic product as opposed to 18 percent now). They also spent much less -- nothing, in fact -- on computers, cellphones, and cable and satellite television.
Your next car can cost less if you forgo GPS, satellite radio, antilock brakes, power steering, power windows and air conditioning. You can shop for such a car at your local Studebaker, Hudson, Nash, Packard and DeSoto dealers.
The president says that his health plan is responsive "to all those families who now spend more on health care than housing or food." Well. The Hudson Institute's Betsy McCaughey, writing in the American Spectator, says that in 1960 the average American household spent 53 percent of its disposable income on food, housing, energy and health care. Today the portion of income consumed by those four has barely changed -- 55 percent. But the health-care component has increased while the other three combined have decreased. This is partly because as societies become richer, they spend more on health care -- and symphonies, universities, museums, etc.
It is also because health care is increasingly competent. When the first baby boomers, whose aging is driving health-care spending, were born in 1946, many American hospitals' principal expense was clean linen. This was long before MRIs, CAT scans and the rest of the diagnostic and therapeutic arsenal that modern medicine deploys. [link]
• We pay more for health care today than we did 40 years ago, in large part, because we can. It's that important to us. It should be that important to us.
• We pay more for everything else as well, including that GPS in our new cars, light trucks, and matching SUV's because we can. They're that important to us.
• Hospital costs are much higher than they were 40 years ago because, in part, they perform so much more good than they did 40 years ago and the performance is so much more competent than in the days when we expected little more than "clean linens" from them.
• People complain about all the unnecessary tests they are put through when they seek treatment while every other system on the planet provides few tests at all. Which would you prefer?
"Running sores on your butt? Here, take an aspirin." (Or, in two-thirds of this planet's societies: "Tuberculosis? Go chew some wing-of-bat and suck the juice from a potato and you'll be cured at first full moon.")
• Obama can only make our wondrous health care delivery system worse. He - and his unwieldy, insensate government bureaucracy - are incapable of improving upon it, and have no real inclination to do so.
This is reality. You'd do well to grasp it before it's too late.
This letter to the editor of the Roanoke Times is typical of the position held by those who demand that the system be overhauled.
The writer thinks doctors should earn less.
The writer thinks pharmaceutical companies should earn less.
The writer believes hospitals should earn less.
The writer believes America's lawyers should earn less.
Because they are too greedy.
And why does this person think they should take a cut in pay?
He thinks he should pay less.
Time for a long look into the mirror ...
Cost estimates for a fully implemented national health care program are now up to 4 trillion dollars.
And climbing ...
Here's Stephen T. Parente, University of Minnesota, in an address to the House Subcommittee on Health (in .pdf format):
CBO scored the Kennedy Bill last week at approximately a 30% reduction for 1 trillion over ten years. Using the ARCOLA model, we found nearly everyone could be covered if all elements of the Kennedy bill were enacted at a ten year cost of 4 trillion. That 4 trillion estimate over 10 years assumes a public option plan with Bronze, Silver and Gold levels in the proposed insurance exchange with a subsidy for premium support that is income-adjusted and calibrated for assistance at the Silver level. The Silver level is equivalent of PPO plan with medium levels of generosity, something with 15% coinsurance rate, manageable copays and average level of access to physicians and hospitals. We accounted for the public plan being reimbursed at 10% above Medicare reimbursement, which is also 10% below commercial insurance premiums. [link] [my emphasis]Rather matter-of-fact, no?
"Eh, four trillion. But everyone's covered. Let's eat."
Give or take a few hundred billion ...
Nationwide Protest against Obama’s Cap and TradeAnd speaking of which ...
By Sher Zieve, Canada Free Press
We have now reached the time for Nationwide Protests against a government that no longer works for us but is now almost fully positioned to move against us. If we do not affect them now, there will never be a time in the future that we can do so. If we do not take National Days of Protest against this increasingly tyrannical government now, we will not be able to do so in the future. I would suggest we begin locally by contacting the people who planned and implemented that April Tea Parties. They have access to the National Tea Party coordinators. If we don’t act now, our country, our jobs, any freedoms and liberties left and our future may—make that will—be gone forever. [link]
Elmwood Park, Downtown Roanoke
3 p.m. to 7 p.m.
This is also a lawful assembly—bring a sign to express your dissension, but DON’T PUT IT ON A POLE!
3PM - 5PM
Enjoy the music of Mid Life Crisis. Check them out
Starting at 5PM we will have speakers taking the stage to discuss their views on the current economic/political crisis. These speakers will be limited to 5 minutes. Scheduled to speak right now: (more speakers are being confirmed)
Jim Ludington: Constitutional Historian
Morgan Griffith GOP Member of the Va House of Delegates
Scott Wolk: Local Chairman of the Constitution Party
Dr. James Lark, past National Chair of the Libertarian Party
Bill Cleaveland: GOP House of Delegate’s Candidate for the 17th District.
Jeff Bowles, Chair of the Libertarian Party of Virginia.
Stuart Bain: Libertarian Party Candidate running for 6th District House of Representatives Seat
Jackie Bledsoe, District Director of the FairTax
The rest of the time will be for any member of the crowd to get up and exercise their Free Speech rights and let us know your thoughts. All are welcome.
The Tea Party will have tables set up with additional information on our group and how you can help us save this nation. Other groups will be present to share information as well.
The imperative becomes more critical with each passing day.
But that was before "global warming" came along.
Before scientists became proles.
Before scientific exploration of the natural world became a fax directive from the Sierra Club.
May those in this once-proud profession hang their heads in shame:
Polar bear expert barred by global warmistsWhat do you suppose these "scientists" are afraid of?
By Christopher Booker, London Telegraph
Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.
This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN's major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world's leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week's meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.
Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.
Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week's meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor's, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: "it was the position you've taken on global warming that brought opposition".
Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG". [link]
One of the leading experts on the subject is barred from the conference because he's not willing to participate in the WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE cheerleading session.
For the love of God.
The UAW Has A Long MemoryIt's almost sad. Can't someone just put this suffering beast out of its misery?
By Mickey Kaus, Kaus Files
The U.A.W., now a major GM shareholder, has delivered its final punishment to those auto workers who dared move to Spring Hill, Tennessee and show up the rest of the union by building reliable car without Wagner-style work rules. GM's new small car will be made in Michigan, and the Spring Hill plant will close. ....
P.S.: Nikke Finke has a better chance of making money producing this car than GM does. [link] (emphasis in the original]
Chancellor Merkel Visits the Debt PresidentAnyone who isn't worried about this is either mad or unable to comprehend.
By Gabor Steingart, Der Spiegel
The Obama Administration's Five Errors
Mistake number one: It's not as bad as it seems. According to conservative forecasts, Obama's policies could end up being three times as expensive as US expenditures during World War II. If one calculates using today's prices, America spent $3 trillion for the war. Obama's budgetary calculations for the decade between 2010 and 2020 assume additional debt of $9 trillion.
Second: It is generally assumed that the money is part of an effort to resuscitate the crisis-plagued economy and is thus serving a good purpose. The truth of the matter is that the bulk of the borrowed money will be used to finance the normal US budget.
The third error: Many believe that when the crisis ends, borrowing will automatically fall. The truth is that it could climb afterwards. The graying of American society creates a new fiscal policy challenge for the country that so far hasn't been reflected in any budget plan.
Fourth: The world believes that the US is borrowing money from capital markets. It is often said that the Chinese and the Japanese will buy government bonds. But the truth of the matter is that trust in the gravitas and reliability of the United States has suffered to such a great degree that fewer and fewer foreigners are purchasing its government bonds. That's why the Federal Reserve is now buying securities that it has printed itself. The Fed's balance sheet has more than doubled since 2007, making the US central bank one of the world's fastest-growing companies. The purpose of this company, though, is to create money out of thin air.
Fallacy No. 5: The additional money is harmless because the economy is starting to pull together again and there is no threat of inflation. The truth is that the quiet on the inflation front is deceptive. The hot money is accumulating in people's savings accounts and in the balance sheets of banks that aren't keen to lend money at the moment. The supply of money has increased by 45 percent in the last three years and there has not been a corresponding rise in hard assets or production. That imbalance will eventually make itself felt in the form of inflation. [link] [my emphasis]
Whatever the final autopsy results reveal, it was greed that killed Michael Jackson. Had he not been driven – by a cabal of bankers, agents, doctors and advisers – to commit to the gruelling 50 concerts in London’s O2 Arena, I believe he would still be alive today.Fascinating.
Many in his entourage spoke frankly to me – and that made it possible for me to write authoritatively last December that Michael had six months to live, a claim that, at the time, his official spokesman, Dr Tohme Tohme, called a ‘complete fabrication’. The singer, he told the world, was in ‘fine health’. Six months and one day later, Jackson was dead.
From "'I'm better off dead. I'm done': Michael Jackson's fateful prediction just a week before his death,"Ian Halperin, London Daily Mail, June 28, 2009