Yes!!
The Mayor of Milwaukee is alive and taking nourishment.
He was spotted in Neenah, WI., at the State middle-school Forensics Tournament. While in the Neenah High School building (that's where the action was) he was NOT accompanied by his bodyguard.
However, the team in which the Mayor had an interest was not successful.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Friday, March 17, 2006
Sykes Spyke II, and More
Yeah, there was another one, and to demonstrate how effective it can be, it ran during the WEEKEND: last Saturday and Sunday.
But there's more. We're also being visited by lotsa folks referred here by "Action Wisconsin."
G-3, I suppose.
But there's more. We're also being visited by lotsa folks referred here by "Action Wisconsin."
G-3, I suppose.
Mike McGee's Pal: Same Methods, Too
Heh.
S'pose Mikie told him how to do this?
It was the 32nd birthday of 1,921 Gonzálezes registered to vote in the western state of Zulia on Wednesday. But instead of celebrating with balloons and cake, many Venezuelans have been shouting fraud.
Every one of these Gonzálezes obtained their first government ID -- and simultaneously registered to vote -- in 2004, just before President Hugo Chávez defeated a recall referendum. And many of them registered on the same day, at the same registration center.
The case is ``one for the Guinness Book of Records,'' said Roberto Ansuini, a former opposition representative on the National Electoral Council who stumbled on it while looking into the registry's reliability. He said the most Gonzálezes ever born on one day in one year in Venezuela is 89.
The González case in Zulia typifies the opposition's claims that the registry is full of fraudulent voters -- one of the reasons some parties boycotted the December legislative elections and may sit out the presidential elections late this year. Many say the case also shows fraud in the recall vote.
The birthday coincided with a European Union report Wednesday on the legislative elections -- which Chávez forces swept in part due to the opposition boycott -- applauding the Electoral Council for its preparation leading up to the vote, but criticizing its reliance on what the report considered an antiquated system to identify voters.
On the other hand, since the EU approves, who are WE to argue?
S'pose Mikie told him how to do this?
It was the 32nd birthday of 1,921 Gonzálezes registered to vote in the western state of Zulia on Wednesday. But instead of celebrating with balloons and cake, many Venezuelans have been shouting fraud.
Every one of these Gonzálezes obtained their first government ID -- and simultaneously registered to vote -- in 2004, just before President Hugo Chávez defeated a recall referendum. And many of them registered on the same day, at the same registration center.
The case is ``one for the Guinness Book of Records,'' said Roberto Ansuini, a former opposition representative on the National Electoral Council who stumbled on it while looking into the registry's reliability. He said the most Gonzálezes ever born on one day in one year in Venezuela is 89.
The González case in Zulia typifies the opposition's claims that the registry is full of fraudulent voters -- one of the reasons some parties boycotted the December legislative elections and may sit out the presidential elections late this year. Many say the case also shows fraud in the recall vote.
The birthday coincided with a European Union report Wednesday on the legislative elections -- which Chávez forces swept in part due to the opposition boycott -- applauding the Electoral Council for its preparation leading up to the vote, but criticizing its reliance on what the report considered an antiquated system to identify voters.
On the other hand, since the EU approves, who are WE to argue?
Lies With (and About) Statistics
Do you buy all that foofoodust telling you that our children are near the bottom in math education and achievement?
You've been suckered...
I've mentioned many times that aggregate scores which are reported mask the fact that the mainstream kids are doing fine, but our system is still failing to devote enough resources to our social underclass. I've mentioned theTIMSS test, for instance, which showed that if Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa and ten other states--none of which has a substantial underclass--had been treated as separate nations, each of them would have been outscored only by Singapore (Prof. David Berliner, "Our SchoolsVersus Theirs," Washington Post, January 28, 2001).
[Or specifically, take] the Program in StudentAssessment (PISA). For the 2000 survey (the 2003 report does not have enough data for what I will emphasize here), the U.S. ranked 18th of the 27 OECD countries, with a mean score of 493. However, broken down by race, the means in the U.S. were:
white 530
black 423
Latino 437
This once again shows, tragically, that the U.S. is not doing enough to bring up the educational performance of its underclass. But if one takes the white score as "mainstream," the U.S. would rank 7th out of27, instead of 18th.
Newsletter from Norm Matloff, Ph.D., UC-Davis Professor of Computer Science
You've been suckered...
I've mentioned many times that aggregate scores which are reported mask the fact that the mainstream kids are doing fine, but our system is still failing to devote enough resources to our social underclass. I've mentioned theTIMSS test, for instance, which showed that if Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa and ten other states--none of which has a substantial underclass--had been treated as separate nations, each of them would have been outscored only by Singapore (Prof. David Berliner, "Our SchoolsVersus Theirs," Washington Post, January 28, 2001).
[Or specifically, take] the Program in StudentAssessment (PISA). For the 2000 survey (the 2003 report does not have enough data for what I will emphasize here), the U.S. ranked 18th of the 27 OECD countries, with a mean score of 493. However, broken down by race, the means in the U.S. were:
white 530
black 423
Latino 437
This once again shows, tragically, that the U.S. is not doing enough to bring up the educational performance of its underclass. But if one takes the white score as "mainstream," the U.S. would rank 7th out of27, instead of 18th.
Newsletter from Norm Matloff, Ph.D., UC-Davis Professor of Computer Science
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Homosexual Parenting: Not Yet Proven Safe for Children
Some arguments for homosexual "marriage" will include rhetoric about 'studies' which seem to show that children raised by Steve & Steve (or Edie & Edie) are "just as stable" as those raised in a traditional parental setting.
Not really.
George Rekers and Mark Kilgus published their analysis in the Regent’s University Law Review. Most of the 36 studies in their analysis concluded that children from same-sex parents were not adversely affected. However, Rekers and Kilgus found across the board problems with these studies. They concluded:
With the exception of the study by Cameron and Cameron, the few studies available are biased with regard to subject selection in that they generally report on a small group of research subjects which are not randomly selected and which do not constitute a scientifically representative sample of homosexual parents and their children.
Furthermore, although the research designs of the available studies are replete with numerous other methodological deficiencies, many of the authors make illegitimate generalizations or unwarranted conclusions from their flawed research studies. Thus, although the available research to date essentially constitutes a number of poorly designed, exploratory pilot studies, both the authors of the studies and many reviewers of the studies have concluded substantially more from these methodologically flawed studies than was warranted scientifically.
In the Cameron and Cameron study, which was methodologically correct but with a smaller-than-valid number of cases, it was found that:
...homosexual parenting is associated with disproportionate rates of homosexual orientation development, undesirable sexual experiences, a first sexual experience that was homosexual, and gender dissatisfaction.
These investigators found that less than 6% of the males and 3% of the females in the general population claimed to be bisexual or homosexual, but by comparison, 75% of the adult male children and 57% of the adult female children reared by homosexual parents claimed that they had developed a bisexual or homosexual orientation. Additionally, at least 35% of the adults who reported having been reared by a homosexual parent became homosexual themselves, and an additional 12% became “less than exclusively heterosexual”, thus a total of 47% of the children of homosexual parents claimed a less than exclusively heterosexual orientation. On that basis, Cameron and Cameron concluded, “Since less than 3% of the adult population is homosexual . . . homosexual parent(s) have a disproportionate fraction of children who become homosexual.”
Further,
This study also reported a disproportionate percentage (29%) of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6% of adult children of heterosexual parents
In addition,
Pointing out a parallel with other studies of sexual victimization of boys, these investigators reported that 67% of the small number of boys who had reported having been molested by their fathers also became bisexual or homosexual themselves.
Children reared by homosexual parents also experience disproportionately higher rates of having both homosexual and heterosexual relations with other caretakers, relatives, and other authority figures. “Males appeared to fare especially poorly in terms of experiencing sexually undesirable events when parented by a homosexual.”
Again, Rekers and Kilgus said that “even though the Cameron and Cameron study was better designed, the small number of homosexual parents in that study make all their results suggestive rather than conclusive.”
Even though Cameron/Cameron is suggestive, however:
...the specific effect of homosexual parenting on child development remains an open question. Until methodologically rigorous research studies are conducted, empirical research has essentially nothing definitive to offer decision-makers in child custody, foster home placement, adoption, or artificial insemination cases. Until such sound scientific studies become available, such decision-making should remain in the realms of ethics, morality, and law.
As is often the case (think Zogby Polls) it's the researcher which often picks a conclusion, then finds evidence.
It turns out that the studies the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has relied upon to draw their conclusions have been conducted by ideologically driven “researchers.”
Dr. Gerald Schoenewolf reports on a recent study which makes this claim and the “authoritative” researcher, Charlotte J. Patterson, who conducted the study:
The study, titled, “Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents: Research, Law and Policy,” claims that the children of lesbian couples are as happy and well-adjusted as children living in traditional homes. In addition, the study recommends — as steps toward “breaking down legal barriers to maintenance of parent-child relationships in families headed by gay and lesbian parents” — repeal of all sodomy laws, legalization of same-sex marriage throughout the U.S., and legalization of adoption by same-sex couples as well as “second-parent adoptions” (adoption of the children of the other same-sex partner). Such reforms, states the report, “would extend to gay and lesbian parents and their children the legal protections that are now generally taken for granted by other families.” In the paper Patterson cites her own research extensively.
Patterson… is a radical homosexual activist “who has a clear agenda to redefine what a family is or should be.” The article went on to point out that Patterson acknowledged in a newspaper interview that her paper didn’t address one of the questions most often asked about lesbian families: do their children turn out to be homosexual? She and others who promote lesbian families have always indicated that such a question is irrelevant because it doesn’t matter, since homosexuality, in their view, is simply a variant of normal sexuality. Such questions are dismissed as “homophobic.”
No, Dr. Patterson, they are legitimate questions posed by ordinary people.
What Cameron/Cameron found is that there are a LOT of questions which are NOT "answered" by research to date.
Oh, there's more:
An article by A. Dean Byrd in Ethical/Theoretical Issues, noted that a number of researchers had been critical of not only Patterson’s research but of all the research used by the American Psychological Association to back up its affirmative position on gay and lesbian parenting. Baumrind (1995), for example, concluded that “Most of the studies are based on small samples of convenience, retrospective data, or self-report instruments subject to social desirability biases” and added that few studies “explored theoretically relevant hypotheses concerning adolescent outcomes or used intensive observational and interview methods most likely to reveal possible problems such as identity diffusion or parent child enmeshment”
Despite the criticism of neutral researchers..., the American Psychological Association still relied heavily on Dr. Patterson’s research in formulating its resolution on same-sex marriage and homosexual parenting, which it announced at its convention in the summer of 2004.
There are some who have ALWAYS had reservations about the Psych Ass'n's resolutions. They are apparently correct...
Not really.
George Rekers and Mark Kilgus published their analysis in the Regent’s University Law Review. Most of the 36 studies in their analysis concluded that children from same-sex parents were not adversely affected. However, Rekers and Kilgus found across the board problems with these studies. They concluded:
With the exception of the study by Cameron and Cameron, the few studies available are biased with regard to subject selection in that they generally report on a small group of research subjects which are not randomly selected and which do not constitute a scientifically representative sample of homosexual parents and their children.
Furthermore, although the research designs of the available studies are replete with numerous other methodological deficiencies, many of the authors make illegitimate generalizations or unwarranted conclusions from their flawed research studies. Thus, although the available research to date essentially constitutes a number of poorly designed, exploratory pilot studies, both the authors of the studies and many reviewers of the studies have concluded substantially more from these methodologically flawed studies than was warranted scientifically.
In the Cameron and Cameron study, which was methodologically correct but with a smaller-than-valid number of cases, it was found that:
...homosexual parenting is associated with disproportionate rates of homosexual orientation development, undesirable sexual experiences, a first sexual experience that was homosexual, and gender dissatisfaction.
These investigators found that less than 6% of the males and 3% of the females in the general population claimed to be bisexual or homosexual, but by comparison, 75% of the adult male children and 57% of the adult female children reared by homosexual parents claimed that they had developed a bisexual or homosexual orientation. Additionally, at least 35% of the adults who reported having been reared by a homosexual parent became homosexual themselves, and an additional 12% became “less than exclusively heterosexual”, thus a total of 47% of the children of homosexual parents claimed a less than exclusively heterosexual orientation. On that basis, Cameron and Cameron concluded, “Since less than 3% of the adult population is homosexual . . . homosexual parent(s) have a disproportionate fraction of children who become homosexual.”
Further,
This study also reported a disproportionate percentage (29%) of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6% of adult children of heterosexual parents
In addition,
Pointing out a parallel with other studies of sexual victimization of boys, these investigators reported that 67% of the small number of boys who had reported having been molested by their fathers also became bisexual or homosexual themselves.
Children reared by homosexual parents also experience disproportionately higher rates of having both homosexual and heterosexual relations with other caretakers, relatives, and other authority figures. “Males appeared to fare especially poorly in terms of experiencing sexually undesirable events when parented by a homosexual.”
Again, Rekers and Kilgus said that “even though the Cameron and Cameron study was better designed, the small number of homosexual parents in that study make all their results suggestive rather than conclusive.”
Even though Cameron/Cameron is suggestive, however:
...the specific effect of homosexual parenting on child development remains an open question. Until methodologically rigorous research studies are conducted, empirical research has essentially nothing definitive to offer decision-makers in child custody, foster home placement, adoption, or artificial insemination cases. Until such sound scientific studies become available, such decision-making should remain in the realms of ethics, morality, and law.
As is often the case (think Zogby Polls) it's the researcher which often picks a conclusion, then finds evidence.
It turns out that the studies the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has relied upon to draw their conclusions have been conducted by ideologically driven “researchers.”
Dr. Gerald Schoenewolf reports on a recent study which makes this claim and the “authoritative” researcher, Charlotte J. Patterson, who conducted the study:
The study, titled, “Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents: Research, Law and Policy,” claims that the children of lesbian couples are as happy and well-adjusted as children living in traditional homes. In addition, the study recommends — as steps toward “breaking down legal barriers to maintenance of parent-child relationships in families headed by gay and lesbian parents” — repeal of all sodomy laws, legalization of same-sex marriage throughout the U.S., and legalization of adoption by same-sex couples as well as “second-parent adoptions” (adoption of the children of the other same-sex partner). Such reforms, states the report, “would extend to gay and lesbian parents and their children the legal protections that are now generally taken for granted by other families.” In the paper Patterson cites her own research extensively.
Patterson… is a radical homosexual activist “who has a clear agenda to redefine what a family is or should be.” The article went on to point out that Patterson acknowledged in a newspaper interview that her paper didn’t address one of the questions most often asked about lesbian families: do their children turn out to be homosexual? She and others who promote lesbian families have always indicated that such a question is irrelevant because it doesn’t matter, since homosexuality, in their view, is simply a variant of normal sexuality. Such questions are dismissed as “homophobic.”
No, Dr. Patterson, they are legitimate questions posed by ordinary people.
What Cameron/Cameron found is that there are a LOT of questions which are NOT "answered" by research to date.
Oh, there's more:
An article by A. Dean Byrd in Ethical/Theoretical Issues, noted that a number of researchers had been critical of not only Patterson’s research but of all the research used by the American Psychological Association to back up its affirmative position on gay and lesbian parenting. Baumrind (1995), for example, concluded that “Most of the studies are based on small samples of convenience, retrospective data, or self-report instruments subject to social desirability biases” and added that few studies “explored theoretically relevant hypotheses concerning adolescent outcomes or used intensive observational and interview methods most likely to reveal possible problems such as identity diffusion or parent child enmeshment”
Despite the criticism of neutral researchers..., the American Psychological Association still relied heavily on Dr. Patterson’s research in formulating its resolution on same-sex marriage and homosexual parenting, which it announced at its convention in the summer of 2004.
There are some who have ALWAYS had reservations about the Psych Ass'n's resolutions. They are apparently correct...
Rebels Against Nature Drop-Kicked Out of Cathedral?
Reported by Terry Berres: the "Call to Action" and "Action Wisconsin" crowds have been elbowed out of the Cathedral...
Right into the Inner City.
Seems to me that a meeting which seems to be, ah..., oriented toward securing approval for gay "marriage" shouldn't be held in a Catholic facility, period.
And I don't think that there's a "sympathy vote" available from residents of Milwaukee's black community...
Right into the Inner City.
Seems to me that a meeting which seems to be, ah..., oriented toward securing approval for gay "marriage" shouldn't be held in a Catholic facility, period.
And I don't think that there's a "sympathy vote" available from residents of Milwaukee's black community...
The Amendment's Second Sentence
As mentioned earlier in this blog, the second sentence of The Amendment has some people concerned.
You can find the relevant post here.
Examples include:
In Ohio, judges have dismissed domestic violence cases brought against men who abused their girlfriends, simply because they were not married.
Perhaps. On the other hand, assault/battery charges could have been brought. This is not a "fact-laden" precis of the case(s) in question.
The Michigan attorney general has ruled that their ban overturns domestic partner policies for state and local government employees.
Yup. That's exactly one of the two reasons for the second sentence. The question here, however, is whether the taxpayer is required to provide "family coverage" for roommates of civil servants.
A Utah attorney is claiming the ban there invalidates a restraining order taken out against a man by his ex-girlfriend.
Attorneys claim a lot of things. That's what attorneys are paid to do. And the PR value for some practitioners is very high, too. Ask Sen. Feinie (D-Al Quaeda.)
A court in Ohio is being asked to void a child custody agreement between a same-sex couple.
Another case of "so what?" It ain't happened, yet. May never happen. And as usual, this precis is devoid of a lot of relevant facts.
A number of public employers in Wisconsin--from La Crosse to Milwaukee to Sun Prairie--currently offer domestic partner benefits, and those would undoubtedly be challenged in court. The City of Madison Attorney, the Dane County Corporation Counsel, the Madison Common Council, and the Milwaukee Common Council have all spoken out against the ban because they fear it would overturn existing domestic partner policies.
Yup. It might, indeed. Note well: these are PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, not private companies.
Generally, the "spread fear, doubt, and uncertainty" campaign is a good tactic, and some people will be swayed. But this laundry list of maybes and taxpayer-funded ripoffs is not substantial.
You can find the relevant post here.
Examples include:
In Ohio, judges have dismissed domestic violence cases brought against men who abused their girlfriends, simply because they were not married.
Perhaps. On the other hand, assault/battery charges could have been brought. This is not a "fact-laden" precis of the case(s) in question.
The Michigan attorney general has ruled that their ban overturns domestic partner policies for state and local government employees.
Yup. That's exactly one of the two reasons for the second sentence. The question here, however, is whether the taxpayer is required to provide "family coverage" for roommates of civil servants.
A Utah attorney is claiming the ban there invalidates a restraining order taken out against a man by his ex-girlfriend.
Attorneys claim a lot of things. That's what attorneys are paid to do. And the PR value for some practitioners is very high, too. Ask Sen. Feinie (D-Al Quaeda.)
A court in Ohio is being asked to void a child custody agreement between a same-sex couple.
Another case of "so what?" It ain't happened, yet. May never happen. And as usual, this precis is devoid of a lot of relevant facts.
A number of public employers in Wisconsin--from La Crosse to Milwaukee to Sun Prairie--currently offer domestic partner benefits, and those would undoubtedly be challenged in court. The City of Madison Attorney, the Dane County Corporation Counsel, the Madison Common Council, and the Milwaukee Common Council have all spoken out against the ban because they fear it would overturn existing domestic partner policies.
Yup. It might, indeed. Note well: these are PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, not private companies.
Generally, the "spread fear, doubt, and uncertainty" campaign is a good tactic, and some people will be swayed. But this laundry list of maybes and taxpayer-funded ripoffs is not substantial.
The Snoozer Awakens--and Fabricates History
Ruth Ginsburg, awakened from her slumber, goes to South Africa (!!!) to reveal that she can lie about precedent as well as anyone... but is caught by Mark Levin of NRO.
Ginsburg’s history lesson on Dred Scott is fiction. Chief Justice Roger Taney, who she tries to paint as an originalist, was actually an activist. She ignored Justice Curtis’s dissent because it would have disproved her argument in support of using foreign law to interpret the Constitution.
Curtis wrote, in part:
When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean.
Tom Jefferson had his suspicions about the BlackRobes, as well:
To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privileged of their corps … and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whether hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
Levin closes:
The Court’s repeated interposition into political and policy areas invites the kind of scrutiny and criticism received by politicians and policymakers. And the public is growing increasingly resentful of justices and judges who use their office to impose their personal preferences on society.
Does Massachusetts ring a bell?
Ginsburg’s history lesson on Dred Scott is fiction. Chief Justice Roger Taney, who she tries to paint as an originalist, was actually an activist. She ignored Justice Curtis’s dissent because it would have disproved her argument in support of using foreign law to interpret the Constitution.
Curtis wrote, in part:
When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean.
Tom Jefferson had his suspicions about the BlackRobes, as well:
To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privileged of their corps … and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whether hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
Levin closes:
The Court’s repeated interposition into political and policy areas invites the kind of scrutiny and criticism received by politicians and policymakers. And the public is growing increasingly resentful of justices and judges who use their office to impose their personal preferences on society.
Does Massachusetts ring a bell?
Nobody's Senator's Ads
You've seen old Herb (and he DOES look old) yapping about 'negotiating drug prices' being the best way to buy. It's true that the new Medicare drug program makes the US Government the largest drug purchaser in the known universe.
But there's more to the story:
An AP story this week describes a memo describing how an organization called Americans United intends to use "polling, television advertisements, public events and more, hoping to serve as a sort of bearer of unwelcome news about the (Medicare) program."
According to the AP story, "...The objectives of the Americans United program, according to the memo, include: Drive down support ... to minuscule levels. Mobilize a popular insurrection ... that demands real change and threatens to exact a price on members of Congress who resist" fixing the program." Fixing the program, by the way, boils down to creating the sort of single payer system that Olympia Snowe proposes and some conservative Republicans, including those who might run for President, might vote for.
The kicker is that the "...organization draws heavy financial support from organized labor, and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California have both met with prospective donors to demonstrate their personal interest in the group's efforts."
So Herbie's not necessarily speaking as a Concerned Senator; he's speaking as a front-man for "Americans United."
But there's even more:
“What troubles me about plans to deal with prescription drug costs that involve price controls, we will have massive cost-shifting. If we have Medicare acting as the buyer for all the medicine, it may be possible for the Government to negotiate a discount. I have always said that might be possible. What troubles me about that approach is we will have the cost passed on to someone else who might be 26 or 27 -- maybe a divorced mom who has a couple of kids -- working as hard as they can, and all of a sudden they find out their prescription drug bill shoots up because Congress adopted an approach in this area that doesn’t use marketplace forces.”
So said Sen. Wyden in 1999. It's still true. Forcing the price of Product A down will not change the profit-objectives of its manufacturer; but it will likely force the manufacturer to raise the price of its Product B.
But there's more to the story:
An AP story this week describes a memo describing how an organization called Americans United intends to use "polling, television advertisements, public events and more, hoping to serve as a sort of bearer of unwelcome news about the (Medicare) program."
According to the AP story, "...The objectives of the Americans United program, according to the memo, include: Drive down support ... to minuscule levels. Mobilize a popular insurrection ... that demands real change and threatens to exact a price on members of Congress who resist" fixing the program." Fixing the program, by the way, boils down to creating the sort of single payer system that Olympia Snowe proposes and some conservative Republicans, including those who might run for President, might vote for.
The kicker is that the "...organization draws heavy financial support from organized labor, and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California have both met with prospective donors to demonstrate their personal interest in the group's efforts."
So Herbie's not necessarily speaking as a Concerned Senator; he's speaking as a front-man for "Americans United."
But there's even more:
“What troubles me about plans to deal with prescription drug costs that involve price controls, we will have massive cost-shifting. If we have Medicare acting as the buyer for all the medicine, it may be possible for the Government to negotiate a discount. I have always said that might be possible. What troubles me about that approach is we will have the cost passed on to someone else who might be 26 or 27 -- maybe a divorced mom who has a couple of kids -- working as hard as they can, and all of a sudden they find out their prescription drug bill shoots up because Congress adopted an approach in this area that doesn’t use marketplace forces.”
So said Sen. Wyden in 1999. It's still true. Forcing the price of Product A down will not change the profit-objectives of its manufacturer; but it will likely force the manufacturer to raise the price of its Product B.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Ow Ow Owie!! My Wrist Hurts!!
A chapter from the Blogosphere. Seems that Xoff has a guest blogger or two. I drew Rowen in the "let's crank up the guest bloglodyte" contest held near Wigderson's place. Chris from Oconomowoc showed up, dripping orange juice all over the place, and Owen inaccurately threw his saber.
(The original post is at the bottom of this pile...)
Dad29 said...
(Ahem)Jim Sensenbrenner was onboard with Feinie about the first version of the PA--the Milwaukee JS printed a story saying that they were joined at the hip on the issue.Others joined, later. Much later. But principled Conservatives saw the problems early.
10:14 AM
Jim Rowen said...
I'd prefer you call him Feingold, or Senator Feingold, or Russ on this blog. Thanks.
10:16 AM
XOut said...
And I would prefer that the shameless junior senator from Wisconsin wasn't shameless, brainless or my senator. Alas, we all have our burdens to carry.While we are making requests… how about referring to Congressman Sensenbrenner as such rather than F.Jim?Anyone for World Peace?
12:13 PM
molliemous said...
A little decorum would be nice. Stop your hooting. I’m in no mood for any more of your jibber-jabber.
2:54 PM
XOut said...
Yeah, lets behave. We don't want Kane or Rowen calling for Dad29's censure or any other 'bold move' like that.
4:25 PM
Dad29 said...
I note the guest bloglodyte did not respond to the substance of my post.Is he indisposed? Or just running spin?Now we have Nobody's Senator and Nobody's Presidential Wannabee with ( -WI) after their names.Great Ceasar's Ghost!
7:22 PM
People bashing (the GOP) and/or ignoring (mainstream Dems) Russ Feingold over the maverick Democrat's proposal to censure President Bush should remember the last noteworthy time that Feingold took an isolated position: his vote against the so-called Patriot Act.It didn't take long for plenty of liberals and conservatives to realize that Feingold was right and they were wrong.As the consequences of Bush's arrogance on the Iraq war and domestic wiretapping become more costly, (and don't forget the administration's indifferent response to Katrina), the wisdom of Feingold's censure motion will become more apparent.The voters will censure Bush in 2008 by voting in an administration far different than what passed for leadership the previous eight years, and Feingold's effort to have started the censuring in 2006 will look prescient.
posted by Jim Rowen at 7:52 PM on Mar 14 2006
HT: Ask Me Later
(The original post is at the bottom of this pile...)
Dad29 said...
(Ahem)Jim Sensenbrenner was onboard with Feinie about the first version of the PA--the Milwaukee JS printed a story saying that they were joined at the hip on the issue.Others joined, later. Much later. But principled Conservatives saw the problems early.
10:14 AM
Jim Rowen said...
I'd prefer you call him Feingold, or Senator Feingold, or Russ on this blog. Thanks.
10:16 AM
XOut said...
And I would prefer that the shameless junior senator from Wisconsin wasn't shameless, brainless or my senator. Alas, we all have our burdens to carry.While we are making requests… how about referring to Congressman Sensenbrenner as such rather than F.Jim?Anyone for World Peace?
12:13 PM
molliemous said...
A little decorum would be nice. Stop your hooting. I’m in no mood for any more of your jibber-jabber.
2:54 PM
XOut said...
Yeah, lets behave. We don't want Kane or Rowen calling for Dad29's censure or any other 'bold move' like that.
4:25 PM
Dad29 said...
I note the guest bloglodyte did not respond to the substance of my post.Is he indisposed? Or just running spin?Now we have Nobody's Senator and Nobody's Presidential Wannabee with ( -WI) after their names.Great Ceasar's Ghost!
7:22 PM
People bashing (the GOP) and/or ignoring (mainstream Dems) Russ Feingold over the maverick Democrat's proposal to censure President Bush should remember the last noteworthy time that Feingold took an isolated position: his vote against the so-called Patriot Act.It didn't take long for plenty of liberals and conservatives to realize that Feingold was right and they were wrong.As the consequences of Bush's arrogance on the Iraq war and domestic wiretapping become more costly, (and don't forget the administration's indifferent response to Katrina), the wisdom of Feingold's censure motion will become more apparent.The voters will censure Bush in 2008 by voting in an administration far different than what passed for leadership the previous eight years, and Feingold's effort to have started the censuring in 2006 will look prescient.
posted by Jim Rowen at 7:52 PM on Mar 14 2006
HT: Ask Me Later
Liturgical Stuff to Recall
From the Bishop of Tulsa, OK., some wisdom and authoritative commentary on the Sacred Liturgy:
I do not consider fidelity to the General Instruction of the
Roman Missal as a legalistic imposition, nor as simply
“following the rubrics.”Rather, our obedience here is an open,
public profession that the Eucharist is something which we
have received and not something which we ourselves make. It
is something which we must hand on in its entirety to our
children and grandchildren.
This is the same over-riding concern which prompted St.
Paul to write to the Corinthians: “For I myself have received
from the Lord that which I in turn handed on to you, that the
Lord Jesus on the night when He was betrayed took bread and
giving thanks, broke it and said, ‘This is my body which is
given up for you.’”(1 Corinthians 11:23)
Our fidelity to the General Instruction is also a daily
reminder that the Eucharist is not a “thing” which can be
manipulated or played with. The Eucharist is not subject to
the whims of those who celebrate it nor those who derive
their life from it. The Eucharist is a Person, Jesus Christ, who
gives Himself to us that we might participate in His selfsurrender.
...
There are periods in the liturgy into which silence naturally
fits, periods in which silence allows the worshipper to dispose
himself or herself to participate in the saving action of the
Mass by listening for the voice of God Who speaks to the
heart in silence.
These periods are specified in the GIRM, and
I am asking our pastors and priests to respect the
congregation’s need for reflective space in the penitential rite,
in the Liturgy of the Word after the first reading and again
after the homily and, finally, after Communion.
At the same time, I am asking choir directors, musicians
and liturgy coordinators not to fill those open spaces with
music for music’s sake. Let there be silence so that God’s
creative and redeeming Word can be heard. Let the Word
penetrate the heart and the mind of the pray-er.
...
Since it is important to guard this sense of silence, this
sense of the sacred, even at times of great joy and after
celebrations involving the whole parish, I am asking that
pastors exercise reasonable caution after baptisms,
confirmations and weddings to ensure that a family’s desire
for keepsake photographs does not give way to an attitude
which disregards the sacredness of our churches and the
Presence - after Mass as well as during Communion - of Him
who is the Author of the Sacraments we celebrate.
...
I would like to ask all those concerned with
the music of our liturgical celebrations,
that is, priests, deacons, cantors, musicians, organists and
liturgical planners, to review the musical programs which
they present in the light of their careful and complete
rereading of the Vatican Council’s document on the liturgy
Sacrosanctum Concilium.
I ask them to pay special attention to the sections devoted
to Sacred Music (Chapter 6, ß112 - 121) that those who share
responsibility in a parish for the implementation of the
Council’s liturgical norms might reacquaint themselves with
what the Council Fathers actually wrote concerning the
requirements of proper liturgical music, and in particular the
principle which places the text in importance over the
melody, thus acknowledging the primacy
of Gregorian Chant among the Church’s
musical traditions, not merely from the
position of its great venerability and
beauty, but also because chant, having no
rhythm, never forces the text to be
rewritten to fit a specific meter. Chant
allows us a certain sacred space within
which that Word which God spoke in
ancient times can be heard today with
greater clarity and fidelity.
At this point, too, some mention must be
made of the great dis-ease I feel when I see
the celebrant at the altar while the cantor or
the choir stands arrayed either to his right
or to his left. I am uncomfortable when I
watch the congregation forced to shift their
focus from the celebrant to the singers, and
from the singers back to the celebrant, over
and over again during the course of the
liturgy. This greatly upsets the balance of
the Mass between proclamation and
response (when our song is our response to
what has been proclaimed) by making the
response itself something that we have to
respond to.
Our focus should always remain on
Christ, and it is the priest who celebrates
the Mass with the deacon who assists him
who are the living image, the true icons, of
Christ the High Priest and Christ the true
Servant.
This problem has been confounded in
some communities by a further
distraction. In my travels around the
Diocese, I have noted certain communities
where the music at Mass has tended more
toward entertainment than toward prayer.
The choir or cantors consciously draw the
attention of the congregation to their
performance and really stirring
performances are rewarded by the
congregation’s grateful applause. In this
case, the placement of the choir, cantor or
musicians in the most visible and
prominent part of the sanctuary not only
proves to be a distraction to the
congregation, but provides a kind of center
stage for a concert of religious music.
When this happens, the music becomes
the center of the experience, and the
sacramental transformation of the
worshipper is reduced to his or her being
merely inspired, the liturgical action of the
Mass becoming itself a distraction.
This Bishop, Edward Slattery, is very well-schooled on Liturgy and music; the excerpts presented here are packed full of theological verities in plain English. It is ironic in the extreme that Milwaukee, an Archdiocese known for the quality of its music and liturgy prior to 1975, would need to import its liturgical instruction from Tulsa.
But it would be entirely fitting were Bp. Slattery's letter to be circulated here by the Chancery.
I do not consider fidelity to the General Instruction of the
Roman Missal as a legalistic imposition, nor as simply
“following the rubrics.”Rather, our obedience here is an open,
public profession that the Eucharist is something which we
have received and not something which we ourselves make. It
is something which we must hand on in its entirety to our
children and grandchildren.
This is the same over-riding concern which prompted St.
Paul to write to the Corinthians: “For I myself have received
from the Lord that which I in turn handed on to you, that the
Lord Jesus on the night when He was betrayed took bread and
giving thanks, broke it and said, ‘This is my body which is
given up for you.’”(1 Corinthians 11:23)
Our fidelity to the General Instruction is also a daily
reminder that the Eucharist is not a “thing” which can be
manipulated or played with. The Eucharist is not subject to
the whims of those who celebrate it nor those who derive
their life from it. The Eucharist is a Person, Jesus Christ, who
gives Himself to us that we might participate in His selfsurrender.
...
There are periods in the liturgy into which silence naturally
fits, periods in which silence allows the worshipper to dispose
himself or herself to participate in the saving action of the
Mass by listening for the voice of God Who speaks to the
heart in silence.
These periods are specified in the GIRM, and
I am asking our pastors and priests to respect the
congregation’s need for reflective space in the penitential rite,
in the Liturgy of the Word after the first reading and again
after the homily and, finally, after Communion.
At the same time, I am asking choir directors, musicians
and liturgy coordinators not to fill those open spaces with
music for music’s sake. Let there be silence so that God’s
creative and redeeming Word can be heard. Let the Word
penetrate the heart and the mind of the pray-er.
...
Since it is important to guard this sense of silence, this
sense of the sacred, even at times of great joy and after
celebrations involving the whole parish, I am asking that
pastors exercise reasonable caution after baptisms,
confirmations and weddings to ensure that a family’s desire
for keepsake photographs does not give way to an attitude
which disregards the sacredness of our churches and the
Presence - after Mass as well as during Communion - of Him
who is the Author of the Sacraments we celebrate.
...
I would like to ask all those concerned with
the music of our liturgical celebrations,
that is, priests, deacons, cantors, musicians, organists and
liturgical planners, to review the musical programs which
they present in the light of their careful and complete
rereading of the Vatican Council’s document on the liturgy
Sacrosanctum Concilium.
I ask them to pay special attention to the sections devoted
to Sacred Music (Chapter 6, ß112 - 121) that those who share
responsibility in a parish for the implementation of the
Council’s liturgical norms might reacquaint themselves with
what the Council Fathers actually wrote concerning the
requirements of proper liturgical music, and in particular the
principle which places the text in importance over the
melody, thus acknowledging the primacy
of Gregorian Chant among the Church’s
musical traditions, not merely from the
position of its great venerability and
beauty, but also because chant, having no
rhythm, never forces the text to be
rewritten to fit a specific meter. Chant
allows us a certain sacred space within
which that Word which God spoke in
ancient times can be heard today with
greater clarity and fidelity.
At this point, too, some mention must be
made of the great dis-ease I feel when I see
the celebrant at the altar while the cantor or
the choir stands arrayed either to his right
or to his left. I am uncomfortable when I
watch the congregation forced to shift their
focus from the celebrant to the singers, and
from the singers back to the celebrant, over
and over again during the course of the
liturgy. This greatly upsets the balance of
the Mass between proclamation and
response (when our song is our response to
what has been proclaimed) by making the
response itself something that we have to
respond to.
Our focus should always remain on
Christ, and it is the priest who celebrates
the Mass with the deacon who assists him
who are the living image, the true icons, of
Christ the High Priest and Christ the true
Servant.
This problem has been confounded in
some communities by a further
distraction. In my travels around the
Diocese, I have noted certain communities
where the music at Mass has tended more
toward entertainment than toward prayer.
The choir or cantors consciously draw the
attention of the congregation to their
performance and really stirring
performances are rewarded by the
congregation’s grateful applause. In this
case, the placement of the choir, cantor or
musicians in the most visible and
prominent part of the sanctuary not only
proves to be a distraction to the
congregation, but provides a kind of center
stage for a concert of religious music.
When this happens, the music becomes
the center of the experience, and the
sacramental transformation of the
worshipper is reduced to his or her being
merely inspired, the liturgical action of the
Mass becoming itself a distraction.
This Bishop, Edward Slattery, is very well-schooled on Liturgy and music; the excerpts presented here are packed full of theological verities in plain English. It is ironic in the extreme that Milwaukee, an Archdiocese known for the quality of its music and liturgy prior to 1975, would need to import its liturgical instruction from Tulsa.
But it would be entirely fitting were Bp. Slattery's letter to be circulated here by the Chancery.
The Other Side of the Story
Haven't said much about the Milwaukee police-pay brouhaha; it's really not my business. Don't live in Milwaukee and the impact on my State taxes is de minimis at most.
But Jessica did a public service and found the other side of the story. It's worth reading.
The cynic might conclude that the JournalSentinel is finding another way to attack the Republicans...
Naaahhh.
But Jessica did a public service and found the other side of the story. It's worth reading.
The cynic might conclude that the JournalSentinel is finding another way to attack the Republicans...
Naaahhh.
The GOP "Suits" vs. K. Harris
From the Prowler/American Spectator blog:
National Review Online is reporting that they hear Rep. Katherine Harris does not intend to step out of the Florida Senate race, and to underscore that point, she will resign from the House.
They only have part of the story, according to Harris sources we speak to. Late last week, Harris was approached by both senior Senate Republicans and intermediaries from the White House about stepping out of the race for the good of party.
According to one Senate official we spoke to, Harris very bluntly told them to forget about it. When told they had strong interest from a well-known, respected former Florida elected official in jumping in, her response was that she welcomed the competition. When they responded that the GOP would begin to make fundraising more difficult, she revealed nary a frown.
To underscore that point, Harris told them that she would resign her House seat and privately finance her Senate campaign. If that "major announcement" is to come, we hear it is going to be that she is taking her campaign private, putting her money where her mouth is and focusing on the race full time.
That may not be the wisest investment, but then her spunk was never in doubt.
I just love that "let the best person win" philosophy in the GOP. Sorta reminds you of the Tim Michels race, eh? Remember, the "wise men" preferred Russ Darrow, or even Bob Welsh (R-Archer-Daniels-Midland.)
National Review Online is reporting that they hear Rep. Katherine Harris does not intend to step out of the Florida Senate race, and to underscore that point, she will resign from the House.
They only have part of the story, according to Harris sources we speak to. Late last week, Harris was approached by both senior Senate Republicans and intermediaries from the White House about stepping out of the race for the good of party.
According to one Senate official we spoke to, Harris very bluntly told them to forget about it. When told they had strong interest from a well-known, respected former Florida elected official in jumping in, her response was that she welcomed the competition. When they responded that the GOP would begin to make fundraising more difficult, she revealed nary a frown.
To underscore that point, Harris told them that she would resign her House seat and privately finance her Senate campaign. If that "major announcement" is to come, we hear it is going to be that she is taking her campaign private, putting her money where her mouth is and focusing on the race full time.
That may not be the wisest investment, but then her spunk was never in doubt.
I just love that "let the best person win" philosophy in the GOP. Sorta reminds you of the Tim Michels race, eh? Remember, the "wise men" preferred Russ Darrow, or even Bob Welsh (R-Archer-Daniels-Midland.)
No More Arguments About Jesus
From a friend:
My Cajun friend had 3 good arguments that Jesus was a Cajun:
1. He liked to serve fish to his friends.
2. He could make his own wine.
3. And he wasn't afraid of water.
My Black friend had 3 good arguments that Jesus was Black:
1. He called everyone "brother".
2. He liked Gospel.
3. He couldn't get a fair trial.
My Jewish friend had 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Jewish:
1. He went into His Father's business.
2. He lived at home until he was 33.
3. He was sure his Mother was a virgin and his mother was sure he was God.
My Italian friend gave his 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Italian:
1. He talked with his hands.
2. He had wine with every meal.
3. He used olive oil.
My California friend also had 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was a Californian:
1. He never cut his hair.
2. He walked around barefoot all the time.
3. He started a new religion.
My Irish friend then gave his 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Irish:
1. He never got married.
2. He was always telling stories.
3. He loved green pastures.
But my women friends have the most compelling evidence of all that Jesus was a woman:
1. He fed a crowd at a moment's notice when there was no food.
2. He kept trying to get a message across to a bunch of men who just didn't get it.
3. And even when he was dead, he had to get up because there was more work to do.
My Cajun friend had 3 good arguments that Jesus was a Cajun:
1. He liked to serve fish to his friends.
2. He could make his own wine.
3. And he wasn't afraid of water.
My Black friend had 3 good arguments that Jesus was Black:
1. He called everyone "brother".
2. He liked Gospel.
3. He couldn't get a fair trial.
My Jewish friend had 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Jewish:
1. He went into His Father's business.
2. He lived at home until he was 33.
3. He was sure his Mother was a virgin and his mother was sure he was God.
My Italian friend gave his 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Italian:
1. He talked with his hands.
2. He had wine with every meal.
3. He used olive oil.
My California friend also had 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was a Californian:
1. He never cut his hair.
2. He walked around barefoot all the time.
3. He started a new religion.
My Irish friend then gave his 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Irish:
1. He never got married.
2. He was always telling stories.
3. He loved green pastures.
But my women friends have the most compelling evidence of all that Jesus was a woman:
1. He fed a crowd at a moment's notice when there was no food.
2. He kept trying to get a message across to a bunch of men who just didn't get it.
3. And even when he was dead, he had to get up because there was more work to do.
Stadium Tax Reality Check
Buried (as usual) near the bottom of the article is the following nugget:
In order to retire the sales tax in 2014, the district needs sales tax growth to average 5.5% a year. In addition, district investments must grow 3.5% a year, according to Jay Williams, board chairman.
That's a LOT of growth. Essentially, they're hoping that the SE Wisconsin economy outgrows the national economy by a significant margin every year until 2014.
Yah, well. Another Tommy Thompson sales job gets its makeup removed...
In order to retire the sales tax in 2014, the district needs sales tax growth to average 5.5% a year. In addition, district investments must grow 3.5% a year, according to Jay Williams, board chairman.
That's a LOT of growth. Essentially, they're hoping that the SE Wisconsin economy outgrows the national economy by a significant margin every year until 2014.
Yah, well. Another Tommy Thompson sales job gets its makeup removed...
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Economics 101 for The Globaloney Crowd
So things are just peachy-dandy, eh?
McMahon, a gentle soul if there ever was one, posts a listing of the Fortune 10 (excluding oil companies) from 1959 against one from 2006.
If you can't discern the problems shouting at you from the table, there's little I can do to help you.
Hint: GM, USS, Bethlehem, Alcoa, and IBM are not on the 2006 list but were present in 1959. Another hint: 3 of the top 10 (2006) are finance outfits; NONE were in the 1959 list.
I only regret that I was unable to copy/paste the table. Thanks!!! Tom.
McMahon, a gentle soul if there ever was one, posts a listing of the Fortune 10 (excluding oil companies) from 1959 against one from 2006.
If you can't discern the problems shouting at you from the table, there's little I can do to help you.
Hint: GM, USS, Bethlehem, Alcoa, and IBM are not on the 2006 list but were present in 1959. Another hint: 3 of the top 10 (2006) are finance outfits; NONE were in the 1959 list.
I only regret that I was unable to copy/paste the table. Thanks!!! Tom.
Wag Their Fingers, Stamp Their Feet
Jessica sums it up pretty well, regarding the JS editorials:
Not that I am comparing the Journal Sentinel editorial board to an inmate or anything (they'd probably prefer that comparison over being compared to a cop anyway - just kidding), but flogging them is sort of like... beating a dead horse or getting upset about getting lectured by an inmate in the jail. I mean, what's the point? Everyone expects them to be whacky, mean-spirited toward Republicans, and out-of-touch at this point. Well, I guess there is a point somewhat. Because someone has to answer back, and they do have a pretty big audience
Well, sorta, Jess.
First of all, that Board is composed of inmates--but not of this Earth. Secondly, I'm not willing to agree with you that they have a "big audience." Even when I needed the birdcage liner, I never read their inane scrivening. Hell, the automobile ads were more stimulating (and factual.)
Not that I am comparing the Journal Sentinel editorial board to an inmate or anything (they'd probably prefer that comparison over being compared to a cop anyway - just kidding), but flogging them is sort of like... beating a dead horse or getting upset about getting lectured by an inmate in the jail. I mean, what's the point? Everyone expects them to be whacky, mean-spirited toward Republicans, and out-of-touch at this point. Well, I guess there is a point somewhat. Because someone has to answer back, and they do have a pretty big audience
Well, sorta, Jess.
First of all, that Board is composed of inmates--but not of this Earth. Secondly, I'm not willing to agree with you that they have a "big audience." Even when I needed the birdcage liner, I never read their inane scrivening. Hell, the automobile ads were more stimulating (and factual.)
Specter Assures Democrat Win
Arlen (Spectre) Specter, (Rino-Scotland) is among the Republican Senate leaders who will assure a Democratic majority in the House for next year.
Arlen just can't stop spending Other People's Money.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) conceded yesterday that a coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats may block the adoption of the spending limits in his budget plan. Facing an election-year revolt, Gregg has already dropped the centerpiece of Bush's budget-cutting efforts for 2007, a $37 billion reduction in the growth of Medicare. And he opted against using in the budget resolution parliamentary language that would have helped Bush extend his first-term tax cuts beyond their 2010 expiration date.
(snip)
In other words, we can thank the same "moderates" who helped bring us the Gang of 14 for this exercise in federal growth, as well as a few others. For instance, Arlen Specter apparently has been reading a little too much of Tom DeLay's press releases. He told the press that Congress is now "beyond cutting the fat and beyond the bone. We're down to the marrow." Specter wants to introduce more expansion in health care, education, and worker safety (by "billions of dollars above the president's request") along with the higher spending on security issues.
Here's the reality, for those who are not number-challenged (like Spectre):
The federal budget has escalated from $1.46T in 1994, when the GOP first came to power in the House, to an estimated $2.77T for this year, almost double in spending. Discretionary spending in that period has increased from $541B to $969B, and even in 2001 only came to $649B. That means that discretionary spending has increased almost 50% in the time when the GOP controlled both the House and the White House.
Did that spending go to defending the nation? Some of it did. Between 2001 and 2006, defense and security spending rose $231B, a 76% increase, but defense is hardly alone. One of Specter's priorities, education, increased a whopping 137% in the same period. Medicare rose 58% and Medicaid 49%. Health research went up 78%. Unemployment benefits increased 27% in a period where unemployment has actually dropped from 2001 levels.
HT: Captain's Quarters
Arlen just can't stop spending Other People's Money.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) conceded yesterday that a coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats may block the adoption of the spending limits in his budget plan. Facing an election-year revolt, Gregg has already dropped the centerpiece of Bush's budget-cutting efforts for 2007, a $37 billion reduction in the growth of Medicare. And he opted against using in the budget resolution parliamentary language that would have helped Bush extend his first-term tax cuts beyond their 2010 expiration date.
(snip)
In other words, we can thank the same "moderates" who helped bring us the Gang of 14 for this exercise in federal growth, as well as a few others. For instance, Arlen Specter apparently has been reading a little too much of Tom DeLay's press releases. He told the press that Congress is now "beyond cutting the fat and beyond the bone. We're down to the marrow." Specter wants to introduce more expansion in health care, education, and worker safety (by "billions of dollars above the president's request") along with the higher spending on security issues.
Here's the reality, for those who are not number-challenged (like Spectre):
The federal budget has escalated from $1.46T in 1994, when the GOP first came to power in the House, to an estimated $2.77T for this year, almost double in spending. Discretionary spending in that period has increased from $541B to $969B, and even in 2001 only came to $649B. That means that discretionary spending has increased almost 50% in the time when the GOP controlled both the House and the White House.
Did that spending go to defending the nation? Some of it did. Between 2001 and 2006, defense and security spending rose $231B, a 76% increase, but defense is hardly alone. One of Specter's priorities, education, increased a whopping 137% in the same period. Medicare rose 58% and Medicaid 49%. Health research went up 78%. Unemployment benefits increased 27% in a period where unemployment has actually dropped from 2001 levels.
HT: Captain's Quarters
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
