Drill Here? Study, plan, authorize . . . maybe.

The New York Times led with a story this morning that the Prez would open offshore areas to oil drilling. Which is odd since it was barely a year ago that he rescinded the drilling permits ordered by his predecessor. But this is different, because now he may be able to entice some "Drill Baby Drill" Republicans into support of a Cap and Trade type proposal with offshore drilling playing the part of the carrot.

Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for First Time

The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday.

The proposal---a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.

Under the plan, the coastline from New Jersey northward would remain closed to all oil and gas activity. So would the Pacific Coast, from Mexico to the Canadian border.

The environmentally sensitive Bristol Bay in southwestern Alaska would be protected and no drilling would be allowed under the plan, officials said. But large tracts in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska — nearly 130 million acres — would be eligible for exploration and drilling after extensive studies.

But the devil is always in the details. The report says that:

"the administration plans to adopt some drilling proposals floated by President George W. Bush."

Note: that the administration plans to adopt some not all. The report goes on to say that officials say:

"The first lease sale off the coast of Virginia could occur as early as next year in a triangular tract 50 miles off the coast."

Or it could occur as let as never. Why? Because the Interior Department

"will spend several years conducting geologic and environmental studies along the rest of the southern and central Atlantic Seaboard. If a tract is deemed suitable for development, it is listed for sale in a competitive bidding system. The next lease sales — if any are authorized by the Interior Department — would not be held before 2012."

Don't know about you, but I find that to be a lot of what if's, kinda sorta's, and maybe's in return for a vote for another large tax increase in the form of Cap and Trade.


As Moe Lane puts it:

"the White House is implying the promise of jam tomorrow - in reality, it’s just a study to revisit the denial of jam yesterday - in exchange for jam today. Only the jam today is actually a swarm of angry wasps. Try again, Mr. President. Start with rescinding your interference with the Bush drilling permits, and expect to give up more. A lot more: your opponents are not interested in indulging the Greenies’ quaint, somewhat primitive religious sensibilities."

In other words, an operator’s ability to drill and explore a lease is subject to his ability to secure the requisite approval from the various government agencies that issue permits for that activity. So, theoretically, the Feds could issue a lease, but if one of the regulatory bodies refuses to issue a permit, there’s no drilling.

And, guess what? It already happened last month.

Montana oil leases suspended

BILLINGS – A federal judge has approved a first-of-its-kind settlement requiring the government to suspend 38,000 acres of oil and gas leases in Montana so it can gauge how oil field activities contribute to climate change. …


Under the deal approved Thursday by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula, the Bureau of Land Management will suspend the 61 leases in Montana within 90 days. They will have to go through a new round of environmental reviews before the suspensions can be lifted.


A parallel lawsuit challenging 70,000 acres of federal lands leased in New Mexico remains pending.

Put simply this is a scheme to regain support for a Cap and Trade proposal that as of this moment appears to be dead. To fall for anything this administration proposes at this point is a mistake. Just Say No to everything until November. Then begin the conversation anew.

So, who is Hitler again? I get confused!

Evan Coyne Maloney has had some interesting posts over the past week on his Brain Terminal blog. In it he shows how the latest efforts by Dems to play up the violent rhetoric and make themselves the "poor me" victims doesn't square with how they were thinking just a few short years ago when Bush was in office. So, let's take a trip down memory lane, shall we?




From the Powerline Blog reffering to Maloney:

During the Bush administration, Evan was out in the field with his camera observing protests and interviewing protesters. He is therefore in a good position to recall the signs and symbols of the left-wing opposition to the Bush administration's post-9/11 national security policies. How do they compare to the Tea Party protesters expressing their opposition to Barack Obama's program of national socialism?


Evan has now produced a timely new video splicing together footage that he calls "A trip down memory lane." He describes it as four minutes of nonstop examples of violent imagery and extremist rhetoric employed by left-wing anti-Bush protesters. He writes: "For some reason, despite it being well documented at the time by me and many others, the media chose to ignore it." Indeed.

In his "memory lane" post, Evan observes a transformation in the attitude of the Democrat/media axis to political protest. He even identifies the precise date of the transformation: "[I]t seems that publicly airing your grievances stopped being patriotic right around noon on January 20th, 2009." How so? "Once President Obama was sworn in, protesting became incitement to violence."

Evan adds: "One thing's for sure: If there is such a thing as dangerous rhetoric, then the media is at least one president too late in reporting the story."

Evan also has another post from the 25th that recalls what the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue thought of how to confront those with differing opinions. In fact he has used it to his advantage on more than one occasion.

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama didn’t shy away from confrontation. In fact, he encouraged it by telling supporters to “argue with” opponents and to “get in their face[s].”


The Obama Administration’s confrontational tone included some violent imagery last August, when one White House official encouraged Obama supporters to “punch back twice as hard” against opponents.

Itawamba Lesbian Student's latest move proves she's in it for the publicity

If anyone was wondering if Itawamba County student Constance McMillen was in it for the right reasons, then there can be little doubt after today. Earlier this month the Itawamba school board called off a school-sponsored prom after the lesbian student petitioned to attend with her girlfriend and to wear a tuxedo.


Following the school board’s decision, McMillen, 18, filed a federal lawsuit against school officials alleging violations of her First Amendment rights. McMillen became an instant celebrity for her stand, making numerous television appearances, including the Ellen DeGeneres Show where she received a $30,000 scholarship offer from news Web site Tonic.com.

A seperate private prom organized for this Friday by parents has now been canceled as well.

"There are a lot of people involved and they don’t want to get sued," said Lori Byrd, who served on the parent organizing committee.

It seems McMillen waited until tickets were no longer on sale to try to purchase one.

Byrd said tickets had been available for two weeks at a local formal wear business, a fact advertised at the school with fliers and over the school PA system. McMillen showed up after the deadline Monday, she said.


"She had a chance. We didn't exclude anybody," she said. "She purposefully waited until after the deadline. I just hate it for the kids. Now they are not going to have anything."

Byrd said the private prom had adopted the same rules as the school-sponsored prom. McMillen could have attended, but she could not bring her girlfriend as her date and had to wear a dress.

Read the entire story at The Clarion Ledger

Does this girl have a Mother and a Father, and why haven't they whipped her butt? Or better yet, why hasn't somebody whipped theirs?

I'm all for letting people be who they really are, but the fact that she is milking her 15 minutes of fame to the detriment of her classmates should be pretty obvious at this point.

Cities considering 'host' penalties

What the Legislature couldn't do, Madison and Canton might do.

A "social host" bill that would punish parents for allowing teenagers to drink at parties in their homes died on the legislative calendar this year, but the Canton and Madison police chiefs say they would propose similar ordinances in their cities.

"I can't wait to get back and start drafting one," Canton Chief Vickie McNeill said at a community town hall meeting Monday in Madison that dealt with the issue of underage drinking. "Parents are a big part of the problem."

Community support proved to be the impetus in most other states for passage of social hosting laws, said Caroline Newkirk, a prevention specialist with Mississippians Advocating Against Underage Drinking. "Nine out of 10 times, it started at the community level and trickled up (to state legislatures), not down," she said.

Madison County Herald

NYT: Insurers to Comply With New Rules for Children

Under pressure from the White House, health insurance companies said Tuesday that they would comply with rules to be issued soon by the Obama administration requiring them to cover children with pre-existing medical problems.

“Health plans recognize the significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition,” said Karen M. Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group. Accordingly, she said, “we await and will fully comply with” the rules.

Ms. Ignagni made the commitment in a letter to Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, who had said she feared that some insurers might exploit a possible ambiguity in the new health care law to deny coverage to some sick children.

The White House immediately claimed victory.

In a Twitter message, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, scored the tug of war as “Kids 1, insurance 0.”

The New York Times

Redstate Analysis of the Legal Challenges to Obamacare

BY: Leon H. Wolf

I had the opportunity last Friday to speak with South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, who graciously made himself available to me to answer some questions about the legal challenges to the Obamacare bill. I have, in private, expressed skepticism about the legal merits of these challenges, for a couple of reasons: first, any challenge asserting that Congress has exceeded the scope of their authority under the Commerce Clause has not had a very good success rate in the past century, and second, I am skeptical of the arguments I have heard thus far for why the states in particular have standing to bring suit.


Attorney General McMaster discussed with me the particulars of the legal challenge brought by Florida AG (and presumptive GOP gubernatorial nominee) Bill McCollum. This challenge was filed seven minutes after the bill was signed into law, and has been joined (for now) by 14 states, and it is anticipated that more will follow. A breakdown of my own analysis of this challenge is below the fold.

In my mind, the first hurdle the states have to clear is the standing question. For the non-lawyers the one-sentence explanation is that not everyone can bring a suit in court challenging the constitutionality of a law; the party bringing the suit must be able to show that they either actually have been injured (or imminently will be injured), and that the Court is capable of redressing such injury.

This is a sticky question in this case. The states have a pretty good argument that they are injured by Obamacare because the act contains a number of unfunded mandates (particularly to Medicaid) that will have an adverse impact on the State’s budget. However, I’m not aware of a particularly plausible constitutional challenge to that aspect of the bill. To my mind, the only plausible challenges to the bill deal with the individual mandate section of the bill. The states, in and of themselves, are not harmed by virtue of the fact that individual persons within the state will be unconstitutionally required to purchase health insurance. Admittedly, I haven’t done any thorough or exhaustive research on this question, but this seems to be a difficult hurdle for the states to mount.

Of course, recent Supreme Court decisions have indicated that as long as one party to the suit has standing, the states may join in the suit. Therefore, it seems that as long as the states can join an individual who is fined for refusing to purchase health care under the law, they have standing. However, there are two problems with this: first, looking at the complaint, they have not done so. There are no individual plaintiffs. That, however, is a fixable problem. Second, and somewhat less fixable (in the short term) the individual plaintiffs will not be required to purchase health insurance until 2014. I am not sure if this counts as imminent harm. It might, and there might be case law demonstrating that it passes muster, but I haven’t seen any in the legal materials provided to me by the states to evaluate that at all. It is also at least possible that the states may have parens patriae standing to sue here, but I am simply not well-versed enough in the doctrine to evaluate that.

Additionally, even if the States can demonstrate standing here, the substantive problems with the challenge are not insignificant. There can be no doubt that the Federal Government currently undertakes a great amount of activity that was never contemplated by the founders under the auspices of the Commerce Clause. However, that very fact itself indicates that this activity has been undertaken with the constant and regular acquiescence of the Supreme Court. However, recent Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison may signal the turning of the tide.

Conceptually, if there is a law that demands that the Supreme Court reassert a reasonable interpretation of the Commerce Clause, this is it. Obamacare mandates that individual citizens purchase a product, on penalty of fines, that is not available in interstate commerce, all theoretically in the name of regulating interstate commerce? Just to speak the concept aloud is to be struck dumb by the breathtaking arrogance of Congress in passing this bill, and the disregard for the Constitutional limits on their power. Of course, States (being entities of general powers as opposed to enumerated powers) might certainly decide to do this, if that is their prerogative, but there is absolutely no justification to be found within the Constitution for the breadth and scope of this action.

In the final analysis, we are treading in uncertain territory here. There is no reasonable argument that what Congress has done is actually within the scope of its powers under the Commerce Clause, as envisioned by the founders. However, until United States v. Lopez, suits brought challenging the constitutionality of Congressional actions on that ground were DOA. Given the new composition of the court, trying to analyze where Supreme Court will come down on this question is a frank guessing game. The most important challenge for the States at this point is to get their ducks in a row on the standing question and let the chips fall where they may

Red State

AP Analysis: Health premiums could rise 17 pct for young adults

Under the health care overhaul, young adults who buy their own insurance will carry a heavier burden of the medical costs of older Americans—a shift expected to raise insurance premiums for young people when the plan takes full effect.

Beginning in 2014, most Americans will be required to buy insurance or pay a tax penalty. That's when premiums for young adults seeking coverage on the individual market would likely climb by 17 percent on average, or roughly $42 a month, according to an analysis of the plan conducted for The Associated Press. The analysis did not factor in tax credits to help offset the increase.

The higher costs will pinch many people in their 20s and early 30s who are struggling to start or advance their careers with the highest unemployment rate in 26 years.

Associated Press

MBJ: Jury deliberating FEMA trailer case

NEW ORLEANS — A federal jury on today began weighing allegations that a government-issued trailer exposed a Hurricane Katrina victim to dangerous fumes, claims similiar to those rejected by a different jury several months ago.

Eight jurors heard two weeks of testimony in a lawsuit brought by New Orleans resident Lyndon Wright against FEMA trailer manufacturer, Forest River Inc. of Goshen, Ind., and trailer installer, Shaw Environmental Inc. of Baton Rouge.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which provided tens of thousands of travel trailers to victims of the August 2005 storm, isn’t a defendant in the case. However, jurors can assign a percentage of fault to FEMA if they decide in Wright’s favor.

The case is the second of several “bellwether” trials designed to test the merits of and possibly resolve other claims over formaldehyde exposure in FEMA trailers.

In September, a jury rejected claims that a FEMA trailer made by Gulf Stream Coach Inc. was “unreasonably dangerous” in its construction.

Formaldehyde, a chemical commonly found in construction materials, can cause breathing problems and has been classified as a carcinogen. Government tests on hundreds of trailers in Louisiana and Mississippi found formaldehyde levels that were, on average, about five times what people are exposed to in most modern homes.

Wright, 39, lived in a FEMA trailer outside his mother’s storm-damaged home for 27 months. He claims elevated levels of formaldehyde in his trailer caused his breathing problems, left him coughing up blood and stoked his cancer fears.

Forest River attorney Ernie Gieger said Wright had a host of health problems before Katrina and didn’t spend much time in the trailer, since he worked long hours at two jobs after the storm.

“Whatever he suffers from today is not substantially associated with formaldehyde in that trailer,” Gieger said.

Wright’s lawyers asked jurors to award him $65,000 for future medical expenses, plus an unspecified amount of money for pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress and “loss or impairment of life’s pleasures.”

Wright can’t recover any money from the federal government if the jury assigns any fault to FEMA.

Mississippi Business Journal

Democrats use threats to protect new Health Care Law.

Looks like the Dems bullying isn't reserved for their own members when it comes to passing and protecting the largest entitlement spending bill in history.

Byron York of the Washington Examiner reports:

Democrats threaten companies hit hard by health care bill

Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has summoned some of the nation's top executives to Capitol Hill to defend their assessment that the new national health care reform law will cost their companies hundreds of millions of dollars in health insurance expenses. Waxman is also demanding that the executives give lawmakers internal company documents related to health care finances -- a move one committee Republican describes as "an attempt to intimidate and silence opponents of the Democrats' flawed health care reform legislation."

On Thursday and Friday, the companies -- so far, they include AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, Deere, Valero Energy, AK Steel and 3M -- said a tax provision in the new health care law will make it far more expensive to provide prescription drug coverage to their retired employees. Now, both retirees and current employees of those companies are wondering whether the new law could mean reduced or canceled benefits for them in the future.


The news is an embarrassment for Democrats. As President Obama and congressional leaders tout the purported benefits of the new health care law, some of the nation's biggest companies are saying it will mean higher costs and fewer benefits -- not exactly what Democrats want to hear in the days after their historic victory.


So Waxman has ordered the executives to explain themselves at an April 21 hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee's investigative subcommittee. That subcommittee just happens to be chaired by Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who held out his vote on health care reform until a few hours before final passage on March 21, giving the bill's opponents the unfounded hope that he might vote against it

The Washington Examiner

Karl Denninger adds his two cents worth at the Market Ticker Analysis with his article:

So The Government Doesn't Like Consequences

One of the "cute tricks" passed with Medicare Part "D" (by George W. Bush) was a "tax credit" for corporations who provided health care to retirees from their firms. This too was a distortion - an intentional one put into that bill to "buy off" some key Reps and Senators to insure passage of Medicare Part "D" (the biggest boondoggle and scam in the history of the Republic - until President Obama signed this piece of crap legislation.)


But this legislation repeals that little ditty in the Medicare Part "D" law.

Remember, the Democrat talking points were that this bill would "lower your costs" and "make health care more affordable." It was also called a "jobs bill" - that is, that this bill would create jobs.

Within hours corporations announced intent to recognize the repeal of this exemption - via 8Ks filed with the SEC. This was not a surprise - Caterpillar had warned the Administration, as had other firms, that the bill as written would increase their costs and that they would have to recognize those forward costs.

Securities laws require firms to disclose material changes when they are realized - which in this case means when the bill was signed into law, since they had already analyzed the bill and it's impact. Legally, these companies are obligated to file the 8Ks disclosing these charges.

The Administration and Democrats generally ignored these folks when they warned of this impact before the bill was passed, of course, claiming they were part of some "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy." Oh wait - that was Clinton. Ok, ok, so Pelosi said she had to pass this bill so we could know what was in it. (And no, that's not an exaggeration - she really did say that!)

Well, the corporations weren't lying, and now the 8Ks are flying. Caterpillar has announced an intent to take a $100 million non-cash charge, John Deer $150 million, and AT&T a whopping $1 billion.

Government's response?

Threats.

Read the rest at Market Ticker Analysis

Mississippi leads nation in unemployment jump

In February, 27 states recorded over-the-month unemployment rate increases. And, Mississippi had the largest increase in the nation.

Seven states and the District of Columbia registered rate decreases and 16 states had no rate change, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. Over the year, jobless rates increased in 46 states and the District of Columbia and declined in four states.

The national unemployment rate in February, 9.7 percent, remained unchanged from January, but was up from 8.2 percent a year earlier.

Mississippi Business Journal

Bill Bonner/Housing Market Recovery: On the Same Schedule as Godot

There are still millions of people living in houses they can’t really afford…and millions of others who are “underwater” and running out of air. That’s why the number of houses facing foreclosure rose in the last quarter of last year. And it’s why the inventory of unsold houses continues to rise.

 

Gradually, people are coming to see houses in a new light. Soon, they’ll see them as money-pits…as expensive follies…and as a pain in the neck. Instead of being proud to have a McMansion…they’ll be embarrassed…like having a car with tail fins in 1985…or wearing a mullet in 2010.

Not only that, it will also be seen as a big waste of money. As the Great Correction continues, unemployment will remain at high levels…savings will increase…and people will want to cut expenses. Among other things, they’ll want smaller, cheaper houses. They’ll want to dump their suburban castles and walk away from their country palaces.

Houses will be losers.

Daily Reckoning

‘Cap and Trade’ Loses Its Standing as Energy Policy of Choice

Less than a year ago, cap and trade was the policy of choice for tackling climate change.
Environmental groups and their foes in industry joined hands to embrace the approach, a market-driven system that sets a ceiling on global warming pollution while allowing companies to trade permits to meet it. President Obama praised it by name in his first budget, and the authors of the House climate and energy bill passed last June largely built their measure around it.

Today, the concept is in wide disrepute, with opponents effectively branding it “cap and tax,” and Tea Party followers using it as a symbol of much of what they say is wrong with Washington.

Mr. Obama dropped all mention of cap and trade from his current budget. And the sponsors of a Senate climate bill likely to be introduced in April, now that Congress is moving past health care, dare not speak its name.

"I don’t know what ‘cap and trade’ means,” Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said last fall in introducing his original climate change plan.

Mr. Kerry’s partner in promoting global warming legislation, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, pronounced economywide cap and trade dead last month and has since been working with Mr. Kerry to try to patch together a bill that satisfies the diverse economic, regional and ideological interests of the Senate.
That plan, still being written, will include a cap on greenhouse gas emissions only for utilities, at least at first, with other industries phased in perhaps years later. It is also said to include a modest tax on gasoline, diesel fuel and aviation fuel, accompanied by new incentives for oil and gas drilling, nuclear power plant construction, carbon capture and storage, and renewable energy sources like wind and solar.

Why did cap and trade die? The short answer is that it was done in by the weak economy, the Wall Street meltdown, determined industry opposition and its own complexity.

The New York Times

Congressman Harper's Military Academy Day to be at Madison Central Saturday

U.S. Representative Gregg Harper will hold his annual Third Congressional District Military Academy Day at Madison Central High School on Saturday, March 27, 2010 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

Military Academy Day is an opportunity for students and parents to learn more about our nation’s military academies, requirements for admission and the appointment process. Harper will be joined by area midshipmen, cadets, alumni and representatives from the five service academies: U.S. Air Force Academy, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, U.S. Military Academy (West Point) and U.S. Naval Academy. The representatives will be present to help answer questions the participants may have about each prestigious institution.

“I encourage all students seeking guidance on obtaining a service academy appointment to take part in this informative informational seminar,” said Congressman Gregg Harper. “I look forward to visiting with the bright young men and women from across the Third Congressional District considering service to our country.”

High school students preparing for college in the approaching years and considering the service academies option should participate. Junior high students are also welcome to attend.

Fervent Republican's overshooting the mark?

In his latest installment Rothenberg writes that Republican's need to tone down the rhetoric and conserve their outrage until November:

calling for repeal of the law moments after the bill’s passage is a statement of ideological faith, a rallying cry for conservatives who never liked the bill and wish it had never passed.


OK. We get it. They didn’t like the bill and don’t like the law. And they voted against it. Fine.

But trying to refight the last war, on the same battlefield and with the same forces, isn’t dedication; it’s political stupidity.

Obviously, repeal is not possible now with Democrats controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House, and by demanding repeal, Republicans look like a bunch of spoiled children who didn’t get their way rather than adults focused on fixing a problem. Voters won’t like that.

From a political point of view, it’s an amateurish mistake. In fact, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has been goading Republican candidates into taking a stand on repeal for months, understanding the damage that Republicans could do to themselves by making the midterm elections a referendum on themselves, instead of on the president and Congress.

That doesn’t mean Republicans should forget about health care, of course.

Polling has long shown that the public isn’t crazy about the law (forget the quick post-passage polls that reflect short-term events), and as long as Republicans don’t make their quest for repeal into this cycle’s version of the Clinton impeachment zoo, the GOP stands to benefit from the issue in many states and districts this fall.

By demanding repeal immediately after passage, Republicans resemble unsuccessful candidates who keep challenging election results and refuse to concede. Voters don’t like candidates who sound like sour grapes, and they won’t like a party that sounds that way either.

Read the entire article at Rothenberg Political Report

MBJ: Barbour maneuvering for healthcare lawsuit

Gov. Haley Barbour has reaffirmed his commitment to have Mississippi join the multi-state lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the healthcare reform legislation approved by the U.S. Congress. Barbour made the announcement after Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat, declined to file a lawsuit by noon, March 25, as asked by Barbour, a Republican.
And, Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) has made public his “no” vote on the Senate healthcare “fix.”

“I’m trying to save the people of Mississippi from an enormous amount of taxes that would be caused by the Obama Administration’s healthcare plan,” Barbour said. “There is a pivotal constitutional argument that needs to be addressed: Does the federal government have the constitutional authority to force American citizens to buy insurance and then tell them what they can buy and at what price?

Hood notified Barbour March 25 that he needed more time to understand the complexities of a possible legal challenge. Fourteen states already have joined in a lawsuit seeking to stop the administration’s healthcare plan.

Barbour had said that if Hood refused to file the lawsuit, he would do it himself. However, in his March 25 response to Barbour, Hood said the case is under review, and the governor could not file a lawsuit as long as the review continued. Hood did not say how long that review might take.

Mississippi Business Journal

The Guv then let it be known with this Press Release that he had no intention of waiting despite Hood's insistance that the governor must wait on the Attorney General.

Throwing bad money after good

U.S. Plans Big Expansion in Effort to Aid Homeowners



The Obama administration on Friday will announce broad new initiatives to help troubled homeowners, potentially refinancing several million of them into fresh government-backed mortgages with lower payments.

Another element of the new program is meant to temporarily reduce the payments of borrowers who are unemployed and seeking a job. Additionally, the government will encourage lenders to write down the value of loans held by borrowers in modification programs.

The escalation in aid comes as the administration is under rising pressure from Congress to resolve the foreclosure crisis, which is straining the economy and putting millions of Americans at risk of losing their homes. But the new initiatives could well spur protests among those who have kept up their payments and are not in trouble.

The administration’s earlier efforts to stem foreclosures have largely been directed at borrowers who were experiencing financial hardship. But the biggest new initiative, which is also likely to be the most controversial, will involve the government, through the Federal Housing Administration, refinancing loans for borrowers who simply owe more than their houses are worth.

Read the article at The New York Times

McClatchy also has a story on it this morning:

The administration already has such a program in place for second liens, but will be doubling what it offers to lenders in this category to help get them out of the way when modifying a mortgage.

Some of the White House thinking is similar to proposals offered by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. He was briefed on the plan Thursday.

Frank has proposed making loans from the TARP program to unemployed homeowners with good credit histories. He also shepherded legislation through Congress several years ago to pay banks that were willing to write off large portions of underwater mortgages, or those that exceed the home's underlying value. Lenders showed little interest in taking such losses, however.

Since then, the housing crisis has deepened as the recession piled foreclosures from job losses on top of the foreclosures tied to weak loans, often made to borrowers with the weakest credit.

Social Security to See Payout Exceed Pay-In This Year

The bursting of the real estate bubble and the ensuing recession have hurt jobs, home prices and now Social Security.

This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Stephen C. Goss, chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, said that while the Congressional projection would probably be borne out, the change would have no effect on benefits in 2010 and retirees would keep receiving their checks as usual.

The problem, he said, is that payments have risen more than expected during the downturn, because jobs disappeared and people applied for benefits sooner than they had planned. At the same time, the program’s revenue has fallen sharply, because there are fewer paychecks to tax.

Analysts have long tried to predict the year when Social Security would pay out more than it took in because they view it as a tipping point — the first step of a long, slow march to insolvency, unless Congress strengthens the program’s finances.

The New York Times

The left is outraged over Americans outrage over Congressional Dems outrageous behavior in pushing through an outrageously unpopular Health Care Bill.

The left is outraged at the current level of dissatisfaction among voters despite being told time and again through every poll (even the liberal leaning ones). The election of a Republican to the Senate seat previously held by one of the most liberal members of Congress didn't faze Democrats. In fact, according to the White House, the event was used as a launching pad to double their efforts. Of course, it should have been obvious after the Town Hall meetings last August that the public didn't support the ideas they were hearing. But, instead the seething anger became fodder for Democrats.

No one supports violence or threats against anyone. But, after being told in so many ways that TAXPAYING Americans didn't want this, and to still ignore the will of the people, many of whom are participating in the political process for the first time, is ignorance. Had they really been in touch with the real world they would have seen this coming.



Some observers still can't seem to come to grips with the fact that the outrage is genuine, blaming the current tone on Republicans. Despite the fact that Republicans have denounced violence, Democrats continue to promote these instances for political gain. Which, in turn, has begun to spill over to the very Republicans who have spoken out against it.

The arguments have been many, the parliamentary tricks have been creative. But, in the end, people know a rat when they smell it.

Democrats should stop playing partisan politics with their own members safety. It's time to work together to at least try to calm the outrage.

Related: Want to be a Congressman? Stupak and others targeted and threatened (Listen)
Health Care for ALL Americans . . . except senior officials and their staff
Governor Barbour to add Mississippi to list of states challenging Health Care Bill
Conservative voters to Democrats: "We're coming and hell is coming with us."
Obama to Dem fencesitters: "Time to pick"

OPEN THREAD SOUND OFF: Did State Auditor address Madison Countians concerns?

State Auditor Stacey Pickering's time on the Gallo Radio Show this morning was all about the ongoing calls for a procedural audit in Madison County. He implied that an investigation has been ongoing for some time. While the discussion went on for the majority of Gallo's City/Metro Hour, Pickering didn't elaborate much more than that, saying to give status updates to the people of Madison County would jeapordize the investigation. He said that concerns brought to light by a recent independant investigation were not a surprise, but added that some of those concerns had now been turned over to the Ethics Committee for further review.

Did you listen to the interview?

Are you satisfied with the response by Pickering?

Was this, in your opinion, too late in coming? Or was it simply a matter of leading a responsibly quiet investigation?

Related Posts: "To Audit Or Not to Audit?" That is the question,  Madison County Supervisor Asks for Audit of Engineer's Contracts . . . Again.

PERRY/The GOPers eye Lt. Gov.

By BRIAN PERRY

Three Republicans appear likely to enter the race for lieutenant governor in 2011. Senator Billy Hewes of Gulfport announced in fall 2009 he would seek the seat. Auditor Stacey Pickering of Laurel says if and when current Lieutenant Governor Phil Bryant announces he will not seek reelection, that Pickering would shortly afterward announce his intentions. Treasurer Tate Reeves is widely rumored to have decided on a run for this spot, but has not made any official announcement.

Senate District 49 in Harrison County first elected Hewes in 1991 when he won a three-way Republican Primary without a run-off and went on to beat Democrat Phillip Allen with 75 percent of the vote. In every subsequent primary and general election, Hewes was reelected without opposition (1992, 1995, 1999, 2003, 2007) - the only exception being the 1999 primary where Hewes won with 82 percent.

Hewes, an insurance agent and real estate broker, currently serves as President Pro Tempore of the Mississippi Senate, the top leadership position below lieutenant governor. Hewes faces a challenge to increase his name identification statewide, but benefits as the Gulf Coast's "native son" in the race - expecting a sizable share of that region's abundant Republican primary votes. His latest campaign finance report lists more than $670,000 cash-on-hand: well on his way to the war chest necessary for campaign efforts.

Reeves provides one of my favorite examples in breaking the rules of political predictions. I can remember numerous times sitting on Pete Perry's (no relation) Neshoba County Fair cabin porch engaged in the political parlor game of predicting who would be in what office next. Pete always challenged everyone to write their predictions down on a piece of paper and seal them in a box and open them ten years later to see how wrong we all would be. We've never done it - too much like work for Neshoba - but in the years preceding 2003, no one would have written down the name "Tate Reeves."

But in 2003, Reeves came out with a fundraising juggernaut in the three-way Republican Primary for Treasurer. Despite little experience in GOP politics, Reeves led the first primary with 48.6 percent of the vote over a state legislator and a former transportation commissioner and won the run-off with 69 percent of the vote. He went on to win the general election with 51.8 percent over Democrat Gary Anderson and Reform Party candidate Lee Dilworth. Reeves raised more than half-a-million dollars in his first political campaign in a down ticket race. He easily won reelection in 2007 with 60.5 % of the vote facing only perennial candidate Shawn O'Hara. Reeves most recent finance report lists nearly $1.2 million cash-on-hand.

In 2003, Pickering took 52.2 percent of the vote in a three-way Republican Primary in Senate District 42 in Jones County. He defeated Democrat Randy Ellzey in the general election with 58.8 percent of the vote. In 2007, he raised nearly half-a-million dollars to win election as State Auditor facing no primary challenge and defeating Democrat Mike Sumrall in the general election 55 percent to 45 percent. Pickering often serves as a visiting preacher on Sundays.

Read more at the Madison County Journal Online

Senate makes changes, returns reconciliation bill to House

The Associated Press

Senate Republicans learned early Thursday that they will be able to kill language in a measure altering President Obama's newly enacted health care overhaul, meaning the bill will have to return to the House for final congressional approval.

It was initially unclear how much of a problem this posed for Democrats hoping to rush the bill to Obama and avoid further congressional votes on what has been a politically painful ordeal for the party. Democrats described the situation as a minor glitch, but did not rule out that Republicans might be able to remove additional sections of the bill.

The president, who signed the landmark legislation into law on Tuesday, was flying to Iowa later in the day for the first of many appearances he will make around the country before the fall congressional elections to sell his health care revamp. Obama was appearing in Iowa City, where as a presidential candidate in 2007 he touted his ideas for health coverage for all.

His trip comes with polls showing people are divided over the law he signed Tuesday, and Democratic lawmakers from competitive districts hoping he can convince more voters by November that it was the right move.

As an exhausted Senate labored past 2 a.m. on a stack of GOP amendments, Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, told reporters that Republicans consulting with the chamber's parliamentarian had found "two minor provisions" that violate Congress' budget rules. The provisions deal with Pell grants for low-income students.

"To audit or not to audit?" That is the question.

State Auditor Stacey Pickering reportedly will be live on the Paul Gallo Radio Show tomorrow, March 25th at 9:00 am. He is expected to address the ongoing battle in Madison County where residents and at least two of the five Supervisors are requesting a procedural audit of the county's dealings with County Engineer Rudy Warnock.

Some resident activists were on the radio show on March 18. A WAPT report on that same day noted the findings of an independent investigation by Madison Mayor Mary Hawkins-Butler through Detroit-based PMA Consultants. The investigation found potenital illegalities in subcontracting, an issue that has been discussed for several months according to Hawkins-Butler, and the spending of as much as $2 million without proper oversight from the Board of Supervisors.

Warnock has said he is the victim of politics, and that the investigator, Richard J. McAfee, was nothing more than a "hired gun."

"This bears further investigation," McAfee said in an interview. "Any government in the business of serving the people need to have better checks and balances. There are so many inconsistencies it would make sense to perform a thorough audit."

Pickering's office currently has 160 active cases probing misused funds. The state auditor's duties are to protect the public's trust by independently assessing state and local governmental and other entities to ensure that public funds are properly received, spent and reported.

"We are going to pursue each one of these and do it in a fair and just manner," Pickering said of the pending cases.

Pickering has recovered more than $3.6 million in embezzled, misspent or misappropriated funds since being elected in 2007. He announced today that his office has collected more than $1,038,000.00 in unpaid court assessments since February 22, 2010 from counties and municipalities, and that an estimated $1,061,000.00 was yet to be turned in. So, his effectiveness is not in question. The question is will he finally answer a simple question,

"Will you or won't you add this particular audit in Madison County to that list and help the taxpayers of Madison County potentially recover millions?"

And, if the answer is no, "Why not?"

Related articles: Madison County Supervisor Asks for Audit Of Engineers Contracts . . . Again.

Want to be a Congressman? Stupak and others targeted and threatened (Listen)

Bart Stupak Left Threatening Messages for Health Care Vote

In the wake of his vote in favor of health care reform legislation, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), a strong opponent of abortion rights, has been on the receiving end of a string of extremely hostile and threatening messages, including death threats.

Stupak's office released some of those messages to CBS News, and you can listen to them here.

"Congressman Stupak, you baby-killing mother f***er... I hope you bleed out your a**, got cancer and die, you mother f***er," one man says in a message to Stupak.

"There are millions of people across the country who wish you ill," a woman says in a voicemail, "and all of those thoughts that are projected on you will materialize into something that's not very good for you."

CBS News also obtained copies of faxes sent to Stupak, which include racial epithets used in reference to President Obama and show pictures of nooses with Stupak's name.

Read the rest of the article at CBS News

Prior to the vote, Stupak also received threatening messages from supporters of the Health Insurance Legislation.

The Catholic Failure

From March 22nd post on The New Ledger Blog:

The roster of names is so long that its recitation would be a total rebuke to the authority of any American Catholic bishop now living and many dead. Kennedy, Leahy, Kucinich, Drinan, Durbin, Pelosi, Casey (Jr.), Mitchell, Sebelius, Cuomo, I could go on. These are men and women who have made it the goal of their careers to advocate the abortion license, to preserve it and expand it. The leaders in the fight to keep public funding of abortion were overwhelmingly self-professed Catholics. Last night, they succeeded.


They teach by word and act that abortion is, at worst, an unfortunately necessary convenience, and is more often a good. They create scandal. They do so as Catholics.

Who among them has been publicly remonstrated by his bishop? Who among them has had to stand in public and choose between an honest recitation of the Nicene Creed and Planned Parenthood v. Casey? Who among them has been reminded of Christ’s injunction about scandal and millstones where their audiences and constituencies can hear?

Why would anyone expect Bart Stupak — otherwise a consummate Democrat — to hold up a health care reform bill against his Party and his Party’s President when even the men who are supposed to stand against evil every waking moment of their lives appear more concerned about the environment, about immigrant rights, about the death penalty? What Catholic sitting in the pews or watching on TV would think there’s anything wrong with abortion when Mario Cuomo’s dishonest justification has stood without censure or excommunication for over a quarter of a century?

The blood of millions will now be shed by the public coffers. That blood lies on the hands of the men with mitres.

Read the entire post at The New Ledger

Health Care for ALL Americans . . . except senior officials and their staff

New Ledger writer and blogger Ben Domenech writes of a little discussed portion of the recent Health Care Legislation that exempts "senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans."

A major story during the course of the health care debate was whether members of Congress would commit to placing themselves in the same health care exchanges as average citizens, or whether they would hang on to their government plans — that’s why leadership chose to add this portion to the bill, serving as a guarantee that members would participate in the same health plans as the people. Here’s the relevant text:

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-

(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are–

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

But as with a lot of legislative matters, the devil is in the details — or in this case, the definitions. As anyone who’s worked on Capitol Hill knows, the personal office staff for a member is governed by different rules than those who work on committees and in the leadership offices. It appears from the way this language is written that those staffers NOT in personal offices, such as those working and paid under the committee structure (such as those working for Chairman Henry Waxman) or those working on leadership staff (such as those working for Speaker Nancy Pelosi) would be exempt from these requirements (emphasis added).

(ii) DEFINITIONS- In this section:

(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS- The term `Member of Congress’ means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF- The term `congressional staff’ means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.

According to the Congressional Research Service, this definition of staff will only apply to those staffers employed within a member’s “personal office” — meaning that it will absolutely not apply to committee staff members, and may not apply to leadership staff.

This problem was acknowledged earlier in the process — last year, Senator Grassley tried to repair it, but he was rebuffed.

As Speaker Pelosi said a few weeks ago, it’s only after this legislation is passed that we’ll truly find out what’s in it.

For his part Senator Chuck Grassley is renewing his efforts to show the Democratic Leaders hypocrisy for what it is.

Grassley says health care reform should apply to President Obama, top administration officials


WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley today said he will offer an amendment during Senate debate on the health care reconciliation bill this week to apply the reform legislation to the President, Vice President, cabinet members and top White House staff.

“It’s pretty unbelieveable that the President and his closest advisors remain untouched by the reforms they pushed for the rest of the country. In other words, President Obama’s health care reform won’t apply to President Obama,” Grassley said. “Last December, the effort to apply any new law to administration political leaders was rejected by the Senate Majority Leader. But there’s no justification for the double standard, and I’ll continue to work to establish fairness.”

The Senate legislation passed last night by the House of Representatives includes an amendment Grassley sponsored and got adopted by the Finance Committee last fall to have members of Congress and their staffs get their health insurance through the same health insurance exchanges where health plans for the general public would be available. During the closed-door negotiations on the bill late last year, the Senate Majority Leader carved out Senate committee and leadership staff from this requirement.

Subsequently, Grassley and Senator Tom Coburn attempted to offer another amendment to restore the requirement during Senate debate on the health care bill, but the Senate Majority Leader would not let their amendment to fix this loophole even come up for a vote. In addition to Senate committee and leadership staff, the amendment Grassley and Coburn filed during the Senate debate would have made the President, the Vice President, top White House staff and cabinet members all get their health insurance through the newly created exchanges. It would not have applied to federal employees in the civil service.

Grassley said, “It’s only fair and logical that top administration officials, who fought so hard for passage of this overhaul of America’s health care system, experience it themselves. If it’s as good as promised, they’ll know it first-hand. If there are problems, they’ll be able to really understand them, as they should.”

Grassley said the motivation for his amendments is simple: public officials who make the laws or lead efforts to have laws changed should live under those laws.

“This is the same principle that motivated me to pursue legislation over 20 years ago to apply civil rights, labor and employment laws to Congress,” Grassley said. Before President Clinton signed into law Grassley’s long-sought Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, Congress had routinely exempted itself.

The Congressional Accountability Act made Congress subject to 12 laws, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Veteran’s Employment and Reemployment Rights at Chapter 43 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code, and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1989.

Today, Grassley is working to make sure Congress lives up to the same standards it imposes on others with legislation such as his Congressional Whistleblower Protection Act.

IRS to Enforce Health Reform

The Internal Revenue Service will function as the government’s chief enforcer for health care reform, monitoring both businesses and individuals to certify whether they have the insurance coverage the government requires.

The tax collection agency will be responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the individual and employer insurance mandates which form the backbone of the Democrats’ hard-won reforms.

The bill states that the purpose of the mandates is to regulate “economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased.”

The mandates require that all Americans carry a minimum level of health insurance or pay a separate tax for every month they are without such coverage. All employers with 50 employers or more will also be required to provide their employees with that same minimum level of coverage.

While that minimum level of coverage will be defined at a later date by the Department of Health and Human Services, it will be the responsibility of the IRS to monitor individuals and employers and to punish those who do not comply.

Under the bill, which passed despite bipartisan opposition March 21, starting in 2014 the IRS would be responsible for monitoring which employers are complying with the mandate and which ones are not. The IRS would begin such monitoring of individuals’ health insurance status in 2014 as well.

The IRS would monitor individuals and businesses’ health insurance statuses through the mandatory reporting the bill requires. Under the law, every individual and most businesses are required to report to the IRS, on their tax returns, whether they have purchased or provided the required level of coverage and disclose to the IRS which months, if any, in which they failed to do so.

Using this information, the IRS would then determine whether an employer or individual falls under the mandate, which contains exceptions for religious conscience, hardship, incarcerated persons, and members of Indian tribes.

If either an individual or a business has failed to comply with this mandate for any month out of the year, they are required to pay a separate tax to the IRS. For individuals this is a maximum of $750 per person (up to $2,250 per household) and $750 per uncovered employee for businesses.

Because these penalties would each apply on a monthly basis, individuals and employers would have to pay 1/12th of the maximum penalties for each month they failed to comply with the mandates.

In order to carry out its new monitoring and enforcement duties, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the IRS will need $10 billion in additional funds, funds which were not made available under the health reform bill.

An analysis done by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that this $10 billion could go to fund an additional 16,500 new IRS agents and other personnel to monitor and enforce the new mandates.

“[T]he IRS could add more than 16,500 additional agents, auditors, examiners, and administrative support personnel to enforce large portions of the nation’s health insurance system,” the report said.

The IRS will also be in charge of collecting the new taxes on high cost insurance plans and on so-called unearned income from couples making over $250,000 per year and single filers making over $200,000 per year.

Both of these provisions could be modified should the Senate approve a budget reconciliation measure the House also passed March 21. Whichever final form they take, they are both direct taxes and thus will be directly administered by the IRS.

Because these new mandates and taxes are under the purview of the IRS, taxpayers and businesses could incur additional penalties normally reserved for normal income tax cheats, paying fees over and above those for not complying with Congress’ new mandates.

The IRS currently charges potentially hefty penalties for, among other things, filing false or fraudulent returns, filing late returns, and failure to pay a tax on time.

Taxpayers and businesses could be hit with these extra penalties because they are required to use their tax returns to prove to the IRS that they are complying with the mandates and because they will have to pay any tax penalties to that agency as well.

CNS News

The question is in what form and under what name will they resurface?

Victor David Hanson: We’ve Crossed the Rubicon

We've Crossed the Rubicon

President Obama has crossed the Rubicon with the health care vote. The bill was not really about medicine; after all, a moderately priced, relatively small federal program could offer the poorer not now insured, presently not on Medicare or state programs like Medicaid or Medical, a basic medical plan.

We have no interest in stopping trial lawyers from milking the system for billions. And we don’t want to address in any meaningful way the individual’s responsibility in some cases (drink, drugs, violence, dangerous sex, bad diet, sloth, etc.) for costly and chronic health procedures.

No, instead, the bill was about assuming a massive portion of the private sector, hiring tens of thousands of loyal, compliant new employees, staffing new departments with new technocrats, and feeling wonderful that we “are leveling the playing field” and have achieved another Civil Rights landmark law. (NB: do the math: add higher state income taxes in most states; the new Clinton-era federal income tax rates to come; the proposed lifting of limits on income exposed to FICA taxes; and now new health care charges — and I think you can reach in some cases a bite of 65%to 70% of one’s income.)

So we are in revolutionary times in which the government will grow to assume everything from energy use to student loans, while abroad we are a revolutionary sort of power, eager to mend fences with Syria and Iran, more eager still to distance ourselves from old Western allies like Israel and Britain.

There won’t be any more soaring rhetoric from Obama about purple-state America, “reaching across the aisle,” or healing our wounds. That was so 2008. Instead, we are in the most partisan age since Vietnam, ushered into it by the self-acclaimed “non-partisan.” But how could it be anything else?

Partisanship all the time, everywhere

No, Obama has thrown down the gauntlet, and is trying to reify the sloganeering of the 1960s. He apparently reasons along the following lines: that centrist talk was campaign fluff; the voters fell for it, and now it’s his turn to remake America with 51% of the House and 44% of the people. Think Sweden, or, better, Greece as our model at home, and something like America as Brazil in matters of foreign policy. Apparently, Obama figures that people now may not like the present partisanship, but they didn’t like FDR at the time either. Yet whom do they associate their Social Security checks with? Hoover? Coolidge? Harding?

I don’t see why the ram-it-through, health care formula won’t be followed by similar strategies for blanket amnesty, cap and trade, and expansions of the state takeover of cars, banks, student loans, and energy.

Remember, all these will be packaged as “comprehensive” reform — comprehensive health care, comprehensive immigration, comprehensive energy, comprehensive monitoring of even the banal decisions we make. So what does comprehensive really mean, other than all of us are going to get even more official looking letters in the mail, advising us to fill out a form, pay a fine, and be warned that a new regulation or tax is on the way — followed by the usual state/federal representative’s newsletter bragging about some new entitlement that he “won” for us with our borrowed money?

The Logic of Statism

I expect a lot of the following in the next three years.

1) Them!: More Obama soaring speeches about some “historic” crisis that needs “comprehensive” solutions (e.g., more of “this is our moment” banalities). Those introductions will be followed by alternate praise of some heroic individual who lost her health care, struggled to unionize, breathed some sooty air, was deported while cooking the evening meal, etc. These gripping narratives will be mixed in with ‘Them!’ demagoguery (e.g., the health care industry, the big corporations, the polluters, the nativists and racists — all of “Them” are standing in the way of hope and change, and, together, yes, we can! defeat them. Oh yes, there is going to being even more sermonizing, and shriller human interest portraits about “Them” smashing poor five-year-old Billy Jones from Topeka who flew up to DC to find Harry Reid for “help”; or “Them” denying Herlinda Lopez from Fresno her college dreams, who then wrote a letter pleading to Michelle for assistance; or “Them” absolutely crushing the mother of Bobby Smith for no other reason than sheer greed, who then took the Greyhound to Nancy Pelosi’s office!

2) The Fedopus has far more than eight tentacles: More letters in the mail from more state and federal bureaucracies (both broke, and searching for billions of dollars for millions of workers who need to be paid). The official looking stationary letters will be advising us that there is a new fee, surcharge, rule, regulation, etc. — mostly in the context that we have already in some way violated something. (Expect in such writs to see your name misspelled, your address garbled, one letter canceling out the one of the prior month, and semi-threatening language demanding compliance. [Don’t dare call the government number since the U.S. can’t hire more competent answerers from India]). This last month, to name a few, I got IRS friendly reminders, State Board of Equalization new rules, federal agricultural surveys, county assessment questionnaires, and the Census. All in all, about 12 official letters came, and I expect more this month. (My favorites are all the county, state, and federal agricultural questionnaires that usually have a warning like, “Do not write ‘no change from last year!’”—meaning that, even though your vineyard hasn’t gone anywhere in the last twelve months, you must go through a zillion questions, marking “No” to things like “Do you have a billboard on your property?” or “Do you raise gaming horses?”

3) More cynicism: The more Obama talks about the greedy and selfish in society who “take” from others, the more the public will understand that they are in fact the greedy in these crosshairs. Costly health problems that originate with obesity, smoking, alcoholism, unsafe sex, violence, law-breaking, etc. are really due to lack of scheduled office visits. One missed colonoscopy — not 50 extra pounds or 1000 Big Macs over the years — causes cancer. People always ache due to a dearth of medical advisors and outreach counselors — or the diet and prescription drugs pushed on the victim by the profit-mongering corporation. In other words, the old days of a kindly, but tiny government politely advising us about what not to do have now transmogrified into a brave new world in which there is no individual. Instead, there exists only collective responsibility — a creed that assumes those in rehab or on parole or fighting weight-induced diabetes were victims of a system in which those who did not engage in that sort of behavior were culpable in some way and should pony up. Best of all, the system assumes we are greedy, cruel, and selfish for writing things like the above.

4) Pelosism: In our brave new world, expect more of the lurid stories about the secretary of the Treasury not paying his FICA taxes. The multimillionaire Madame Speaker will spend more of the state’s millions on private jet travel as she lectures on carbon footprints and a culture of corruption. We will hear more about the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee hiding his income, or a member of the House Rules Committee bragging that, given the historic importance of health care, they are just making up the rules as they go along — and proud of it. Our guardian class has become the new French aristocracy at Versailles. They will rail about Citation jets for the CEO, and then fly federally-owned Gulfstreams; they will put us in Smart cars but limo in Yukons and Tahoes on “official business.” Our lifestyles will be as monitored as much as those who do the monitoring will not be at all.

5) Greedy and Not-So-Greedy Capitalists: And there are “bad” and “not so bad” capitalists too. The CEOs for GM are trying to help America out with green designs and fair wages — so unlike those at Ford and Toyota. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are the model execs, quite unlike the yokels who run Caterpillar and whine about health care. George Soros is not really a money speculator that ruins banks, but a transferer of capital to progressive causes. In every statist society, large corporations either resist or join. For the latter, the machinery of government reinvents them as part of the solution rather than the problem — in the way that Al Gore really doesn’t really guzzle electricity, or John Edwards never really lived in a mansion. The transition to a Ministry of Industry requires a Ministry of Truth. With the Obama media we are already half there.

6) The Race/Class/Gender Cult: This federal caring creed trumps all religion. We will hear thousands of homophobic, racist, sexist anecdotes (but not those from a Ruth Ginsberg, or Harry Reid, or Joe Biden) that remind us why the government must enforce diversity set-asides and affirmative actions, and fund new sociological studies proving why group X hates group Y, and why government bureau Z is fighting X on behalf of Y for all our benefit. We are in perpetual war with perpetual ologies and –isms and we need far more Van Joneses to win them!

I understand the reasoning behind Obamism and am familiar with the feel-good, this-is-our-moment rhetoric of egalitarianism. But please at least spare us the fictions and simply be honest: Obama wants a state-run America, somewhere to the left of France or Denmark, a United States unexceptional and merely one of many nations at the UN. This vision follows an existing, decades-long encroachment of government. And it requires all sorts of highly credentialed overseers monitoring and at times justifiably attacking the upper middle class for its deplorable treatment of those below it.

This new America is ultimately predicated on the notion that we were born equal and must die absolutely equal as well. And this is entirely within our grasp, if we just understand that individual responsibility, talent, natural endowment, chance, merit, luck, tragedy, and a dozen other variables far too complex for government to imagine, much less solve, in fact, are not the real obstacles to ensuring equality.

Instead, it is simpler than that: greed, selfishness, racism, sexism, classism, and not niceness on the part of a few really are the culprits. Thank God that a few rare souls like Obama fathom that. And thank God, again, that it will take a singular humanitarian and genius like Obama to make us denser folks see it and do something about it.

That’s about where we are.

Subscript: Do Democrats realize that we really have crossed the Rubicon? In the future when the Republicans gain majorities (and they will), the liberal modus operandi will be the model—bare 51% majorities, reconciliation, the nuclear option, talk of deem and pass, not a single Democrat vote—all ends justifying the means in order to radically restructure vast swaths of American economic and social life. Is someone unhinged at the DNC? They just blew up any shred of bipartisan consensus when their President polls below 50%, the Democratically-controlled Congress below 20%, and health care reform less than 50%. Usually unpopular leaders and their unpopular ideas seek the shelter of minority rights and prerogatives. What will they do when they are in the minority—since they’ve entered the arena, boasted “let the games begin” and shouted “by any means necessary”?

Governor Barbour to add Mississippi to list of states challenging Health Care Bill.

Barbour to AG: File health care suit or I will

The Associated Press

 Mississippi's Republican governor and lieutenant governor are asking the state's Democratic attorney general to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a sweeping federal health care bill.

 The legislation passed Sunday, and President Barack Obama plans to sign it into law Tuesday.

Gov. Haley Barbour said he will file a lawsuit himself if Attorney General Jim Hood does not make a decision by noon Thursday.

"A physician's creed is to 'First, do no harm,"' Barbour, who's head of the Republican Governors Association, said in a statement Monday. "The health care legislation passed Sunday infects the economy with harmful tax increases, strips benefits from senior citizens and robs each citizen of their basic freedom to choose their own health care."

Hood made no commitment Monday, saying only that once the bill is signed, "we will review the law to determine if there are any viable causes of action for the state of Mississippi."

Clarion Ledger

The Mississippi Business Journal also reported on the story saying

Lt. Governor Phil Bryant joined the Governor by sending a letter to Attorney General Jim Hood Monday, asking the Democrat to file a lawsuit on behalf of the state. See the press release and entire letter here.

Bryant says Mississippi should assert its rights under the 10th Amendment, which “protects states from an overbearing federal government.”

Mississippi is not the only state mulling a challenge to the healthcare bill. Washington, Utah and Nebraska are also thinking of suing, according to The Associated Press.

Conservative Voters to Democrats: "We're coming, and hell is coming with us"

The Monday morning quarterbacking is in full stride as politicos look to explain the answers to the "what happens now" questions with Health Care legislation.

Mark Steyn of the National Review is playing the defeatist, but he seems to be in the minority among conservative political analysts. He says, "Dems wouldn't be doing what they're doing. Their bet is that it can't be undone, and that over time, as I've been saying for years now, governmentalized health care not only changes the relationship of the citizen to the state but the very character of the people."

But, does he underestimate the "character of the people"? And does he jump the gun on the "woe is me" talk? Is he wrong that voters will be inundated and then, once again, stop caring?

Yes.

The first thing to understand is that the fight has merely shifted from DC to the states as Attorneys General line up to challenge the constitutionality of the bill's mandate that requires everyone to buy health insurance.

FoxNews.com reports:

Health Care Reform Fight Shifts From Congress to the Courts


Now that the House, in a historic vote, has passed the Senate's health care bill and sent it to the president's desk, state lawmakers and attorneys general already are lining up to challenge its constitutionality and wage an outside-the-Beltway war against it in the courts.


Now that the House, in a historic vote, has passed the Senate's bill and sent it to the president's desk, state lawmakers and attorneys general already are lining up to challenge its constitutionality and wage an outside-the-Beltway war against it in the courts.


Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli was the first to announce Monday that he will file a legal challenge -- as soon as Obama signs the bill.


Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum also plans to announce Monday morning that he and top prosecutors from nine other states are filing a lawsuit to "protect the rights" of the American people from the bill.


While some Republicans have threatened to pursue repealing the legislation down the road, the most immediate challenge will take place in the courts.


At least three dozen state legislatures are considering proposals to challenge the federal legislation. Some are pursuing amendments to their constitutions by ballot question; others are looking to change state law.


Constitutional lawyers have questioned whether such a lawsuit could be successful, since federal law trumps state law. But opponents are looking to get around that by questioning the law's constitutionality.

There are a few other reasons to believe that Sunday's vote was not the Armageddon many thought it would be. The main one being that it has awaken the conservative voters, and ruined the future chances of the Democrats getting much of anything else done. If that is the case, then all this celebratory hoo ha will be much ado about nothing, and Democrats will find that they are celebrating their parties banishment into the wilderness.

Powerline:

"repealing this disaster of a bill will be a rallying cry for the American people for years to come. Moreover, even if the Republicans only take over the House in November, and not the Senate, won't it be possible to throw roadblocks in the way of the bill's implementation? Won't budget appropriations be necessary to sustain the various federal tentacles the bill seeks to establish? What will happen if the House simply refuses to fund them?"

"Barack Obama has used his political capital--pretty much all of it--on unpopular legislation that will continue to rile the voters for years to come. As a result, Obama is a remarkably unpopular second-year President. And he hasn't even experienced any bad luck yet. It is hard to see how he will be able to regain his footing."

Powerline also makes one more "silverlining" observation that I think is good news for conservatives in general and the Republican Party specifically. That is that:

Paul Ryan has emerged as one of the conservative movement's strongest spokesmen. In the years to come, I think we will hear the words "I'm a Paul Ryan Republican" with increasing frequency.

Paul Ryan is simply one of the brightest young minds in the country right now. He understands that conservative principles are more than just talking points. I've been a big fan for over a year now. It's really good to see his star rising.

So, if you like references to bible verses then be ye of good cheer, and worry not. Proverbs 18:2 says "A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions." But verse 13 adds, "He who answers before listening— that is his folly and his shame."

The folly and shame part is yet to come.

 If you're a little more hardcore then try the classic line from Tombstone: