People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Sunday, November 29, 2009

Gov't In Action

I wonder if the kids over at the Roanoke Times - the ones who are really big on the government takeover (and assured destruction) of what most Americans consider to be the finest health care delivery system the world has ever devised - think about their position when they read the column penned by one of their own - Luanne Traud - that has to do with her attempting, on three different occasions, to go down to the government-run DMV and obtain a simple driver's license.

Yeah, I wonder.

Uh, never mind.  Actually I don't.

Tom Perriello a One-Termer?

If the reaction of the people of Virginia's 5th District continues to grow ever more negative towards ObamaCare, it certainly is a possibility.  For the anger toward Obama's abominable government takeover of the health care system continues to rise.  And heads (including Tom's) will surely roll:
Growing public backlash over Obamacare
Washington Examiner editorial

Two-dozen Democrats from Republican-leaning districts, who voted for the House version of President Obama's increasingly unpopular health care reform, are beginning to feel a growing public backlash.

They're not the only ones. Twenty-nine other House Democrats who voted for the bill come from districts that John McCain carried, making them particularly vulnerable to an angry electorate that never bought into the "hope and change" hype in the first place.

As support erodes for Obamacare's massive tax increases and deep Medicare cuts, they must also consider the personal political cost. Only 38 percent of the public supports their health care plan, the lowest level of public support in more than two years. As more details of the 2,074-page behemoth -- which most members of Congress concede they have not read -- continue to trickle out, the more the poll numbers drop.

It's not hard to figure out why. Obamacare was supposed to lower costs, extend coverage and improve Americans' health care options. It does none of those things.

Despite accounting gimmicks, Obamacare will cost $4.9 trillion over the next 20 years. This enormous sum will suck the wind out of an already struggling economy. The plan includes higher premiums for younger workers, fines for those who refuse to purchase coverage, lower Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals, and job-killing taxes on employers.

Obamacare will also force an estimated five million workers to lose their employer-provided coverage.

Federal taxpayers will be forced to pay for elective abortions even though only 13 percent favor such coverage.

As far as improving health care options is concerned, the administration wants to cut down on mammograms and slash Medicare Advantage for seniors to save money. After all this spending and upheaval, 24 million Americans will remain uninsured in 2019. Every Democrat who ignores the public will and votes for this higher-cost, lower-care monstrosity will be held accountable. Voters back home won't let them forget it. [link]
Remember, not long ago, how "fixing the health care system" involved reducing the average family's cost (Obama pledged to reduce annual premiums by $2500 to get elected)?  That was then.  It ain't no mo'.  Now it's all about extending benefits to the uninsured.  In other words, it's become nothing more than another entitlement.  Another welfare program.

And a very costly welfare program at that.

One that will cost the American people dearly to implement.  As much as $6,250,000,000,000. Tens of thousands per household.

We went, somehow, from being promised a cost savings to having delivered to us a back-breaking cost increase.

The American people are rightly outraged.  And that outrage builds.


Be Careful What You Wish For

We all hate the rich.  Right?  We want them punished.  We want them to bleed.  To squeal like pigs.  That's why, when we hear talk of capping their salaries and taxing the living hell out of them, we all smile.  They deserve it.

If only it worked out that way:
Leaving Corporate America
By John Dietrich, American Thinker

David Farr, the CEO of Emerson Electric Co., asserted, "I'm not going to hire anybody in the U.S. I'm moving. They (Washington) are doing everything possible to destroy jobs."

Farr is not alone in his determination to abandon the anti-business climate of the United States. Eleven major companies have relocated or are in the process of relocating overseas: Tyco International Ltd., Foster Wheeler AG, Weatherford International Ltd., Nabors Industries Ltd., Noble Corp., TransOcean International Group, United America Indemnity Ltd., Cooper Industries, Covidien, Ingersoll-Rand PLC, and Accenture Ltd. The U.S. has the world's highest corporate tax rate after Japan, but we have been promised that free health insurance will make American companies competitive.

In addition to increased taxes, there are other incentives to relocate outside of the United States. The federal government now sees the need to regulate executive compensation. This is a very popular idea, and politicians like popular ideas. Paying executives tens of millions of dollars a year does not seem reasonable. And the majority of Americans agree: high salaries for American CEOs must be regulated.

The market proves otherwise. If the market offers executives significantly larger incomes to relocate, many will relocate. Josef Ackerman of Deutsche Bank reportedly stated, "We can't wait to get our hands on all that top talent." A reasonable person might say, "The market be damned." The market can at times be very unreasonable. As an illustration, suppose the owner of an NBA team were to conclude that bouncing a ball was worth only $100,000 a year. Where would his team be in the standings? What would the team's attendance figures be? As a result of this change, how many hot dog vendors would be laid off?

As corporations relocate overseas, we will become a progressive utopia of teachers teaching social workers and social workers ministering to the needs of teachers. Somehow I do not think this will work. [link]
None of this makes any difference.  We hate the rich and that's that.  If they leave this country, well, good riddance.  The consequences will deal with themselves.

I've mentioned before an odd - yet telling - circumstance that occurred a few years ago.  Of all the opinion pieces I wrote for my weekly column in the Roanoke Times the one about which I received the most negative responses was entitled, "Eat the Rich" (the Times changed it to "Rising Tide"; a copy editor obviously hated me).  (You'd think it would have been the one about homosexuals, but no).  Responses that could be uniformly encapsulated in the phrase, "The rich have what we don't; we hate them; we don't care if the government singles them out for retribution."

Is it any wonder that the job creators are starting to pack their bags and leave?

But with them goes their dollars.  Dollars that would have been spent here in our stores.  Dollars that would have gone to the government in the way of (punitively progressive) taxes.  A government that is seeing its revenue plummet and its debt skyrocket.

But we don't care.  We hate them.

I have little doubt that we'll still be saying that when they're all gone and half of us are unemployed.

I sometimes think we deserve that which we are about to get.

For The Love Of God

Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row

Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data - dubbed Climategate - have agreed to publish their figures in full.

There is a growing chorus of calls from within the scientific community for the researchers at the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia to "open-source" its data so that others can test the methodologies and calculations that the global warming zealots at the CRU used to complete their many reports showing that the planet is warming.  So this is excellent news.

But wait.

Unfortunately that cannot now happen.  Ever.  Not because the "scientists" there continue to stonewall. But because they threw away the data:
Climate change data dumped
By Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor, Times of London

Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. [link]
A law enforcement investigation will ultimately reveal whether the trashing of data was as innocent as reported here or, as is likely, the global warmists trashed it so as to avoid complete embarrassment (and possible prison time).

But the important point is: The information critical to now determining if, in fact, the planet has warmed at all over the last hundred years is lost forever.

Accident, blunder, short-sightedness, or criminal conspiracy, the loss is immeasurable.

There's some kind of punishment due.  We don't yet know what it should be.  But punishment for certain.

Another Reason The Global Warmists Lost

They are hilariously ridiculous in their efforts to make their case.

From the "You can't make this stuff up" page (sometimes referred to as the op/ed page) of the New York Times:
Before the Climate Conference, a Weather Report

President Obama and other world leaders will gather in Copenhagen next week to discuss climate change. Though this is a global issue, it’s also a profoundly local one. For this reason, the Op-Ed editors asked writers from four different continents to report on the climate changes they’ve experienced close to home. Here are their dispatches.

In Copenhagen, the once moderate-to-fresh winds are now more often storms.

In Cape Town, a rise in unpredictable and more ferocious fires are destroying the ecosystem.

The Penquins of Brazil
In Rio de Janeiro, shifiting ocean currents and water temperatures have changed bird migration patterns.

In Japan, Concerns Blossom
In Tokyo, it no longer snows in winter.
Keep in mind the fact that, if the experts' measurements are to be believed (a highly dubious assumption these days), the earth's temperature has risen 0.2° C. in recent decades.

0.2 degrees.

Despite the fact that that increase is nearly undetectable, winds have become storms, fires have begun to rage, bird migration patterns have been altered, and it no longer snows in parts of Japan.

0.2 degrees.

Can these people be any more goofy?

I think maybe someone's been staying up late and watching too many comedies on TV:

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

"Weather!"  Too funny.