Changes coming to health insurance plans

Consumers and employers who provide health insurance are scrambling to understand what will change in their premiums and benefits once the recently passed law goes into effect.

The new legislation applies broadly to nearly all private plans. That includes policies offered by large self-insured employers, through whom about half of the nation's covered workers get their insurance.

Some new rules — such as barring insurers from rejecting children with medical conditions or from canceling policies retroactively — are aimed at problems that mainly affect the 17 million people who buy their own insurance in the so-called non-group market.

But even the approximately 175 million Americans who get group coverage through their jobs will see changes.

Employers are flooding benefit firms with questions.

"We're getting a lot of calls (asking) ... to translate what this law means," says Kelly Traw, a principal with benefits consultancy Mercer. "That's a daunting task right now."

Some specific changes to policies and benefits aren't spelled out in the law. While some changes mandated by the new law appear fairly straightforward — no lifetime caps on coverage, for example — other provisions are missing crucial details, which must be clarified by the Department of Health and Human Services in regulations.

It will be up to the HHS secretary, for example:

• To define the breadth of coverage in an "essential benefits package."

• To determine how insurers will calculate how much they spend on direct medical care, a key point because insurers who don't meet specific spending benchmarks must issue rebates to consumers.

An HHS spokesman wouldn't provide details on when regulations will be issued. But, with some provisions set to go into effect by the end of September, pressure is on to move quickly.

 

Among the unknowns is the effect on premiums in the next couple of years. New taxes on drug companies, device makers and insurers don't begin until at least 2012. But when they do, economists expect that the increases will be passed along to employers and consumers. Barring insurers from setting lifetime coverage limits may also put upward pressure on premiums.

 

Read more at Kaiser Health News

WLBT Report--Madison mayor questions county engineering fees (Video)

The verbal back and forth is ramping up between Mayor Mary and Rudy Warnock over the engineering fees. Around the one minute mark of the video is an interesting edit, as the Mayor asks why projects are engineered before construction funding is available. The video immediately cuts to Warnock saying, "it is a waste of time, and a waste of money." I'm pretty sure he wasn't commenting on the engineering fees he's been able to collect prior to funding of projects. Was the WLBT editor having a bit of fun?

Madison Mayor Mary Hawkins Butler is demanding a forensic audit of engineering projects done in her city by Madison County Engineer Rudy Warnock.

This request comes after an independent audit done on Warnock that claimed to find discrepancies in how much he was charging for his work.

The audit was done by hired engineer Richard McAfee of Florida. In his report, he claimed to have found multiple instances of excessive charges to the city of Madison, and questionable payments to the Warnock and Associates Engineering Firm.

WLBT

Related Posts: Madison County Supervisor Asks For Audit of Engineers Contracts . . . Again
"To Audit Or Not To Audit?" That Is The Question.
Sound Off Open Thread: Did the State Auditor Address Madison Countians Concerns?
Madison County Journal--Report questions engineering fees

CBO Healthcare Estimates $130 Billion in Savings . . . Big Deal!

The democrats where so excited when the CBO's estimated the savings over ten years will be $130 billion because of the new health care reform bill. There is a big "but". The CBO also estimates, according to Barack Obama's budget, the United States National debt will rise $9.8 Trillion dollars in the same period.


Thus, Obama is going to spending $9.8 Trillion more money than the government earns from tax revenues. How? By borrowing and printing money to cover the shortfall. This will raise the National Debt from 2010 levels of $12.5 trillion to $22 Trillion.

At the current $12.5 Trillion, the interest ALONE increases the national debt by $50 billion per year or $500 billion in tens or roughly $130 billion in 2 years and 3 months.

The CBO's projections that The Health Care Bill will save $130 Billion in Ten years is insignificant Deficitaid.com is puzzled that information was even news worthy.

Below is an excerpt of the new CBO's estimate for President Obama's deficits projections over ten years.

CBO estimates $9.8 trillion in deficits over 10 years

By Vicki Needham - 03/24/10 06:58 PM ET The Hill

The federal government would record total deficits of 9.8 trillion between 2011 and 2020 under President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget, according to an analysis released Wednesday on the by the Congressional Budget Office.

The deficit would be $1.5 trillion in 2010 and and would decline to 8.9 percent of gross domestic product or $1.3 trillion in 2011, $346 billion more than the deficit that CBO projects in its March 5 baseline, based on current policies and laws not changing.

CBO upped the 2010 deficit projections by $20 billion in 2010 and reduced overall estimated deficits by $57 billion between the 2011-2020 period from earlier estimates.

Also, under the president's budget debt held by the public would grow from $7.5 trillion or 53 percent of GDP at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion, or 90 percent of GDP, at the end of 2020, about $5 trillion more than under the assumptions underlying the baseline.

The analysis also found that revenues would be $1.4 trillion, or 4 percent, below CBO's baseline projections from 2011 to 2020, mainly because of the president's proposals to index the thresholds for the alternative minimum tax for inflation starting at their 2009 levels and to extend many of the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 scheduled to expire at the end of the year. Other proposals in the budget, including changes to the healthcare system would increase net revenues.

Deficit Aid.Com

Domenech: CEOs won’t dare defy Waxman, even with facts on their side

By Benjamin Domenech

In the aftermath of World War II, the U.S. Senate War Investigating Committee called hearings in an attempt to publicly shame and excoriate industrial titan Howard Hughes. Hughes was accused of wasting taxpayer money on his F-11 and HK-1 projects. The hearings backfired as the stubborn Hughes accused the Senators of corruption and blackmail and of being beholden to his competitors, and he detailed the millions of his own dollars he spent on these projects.

The committee, embarrassed by the unexpectedly effective defiance of the infamous recluse, disbanded without filing a report.

Don’t expect that kind of defiance from the chief executives of AT&T, Verizon Communications, Caterpillar, and Deere & Co., if they respond to the demands of powerful Democratic Chairman Henry Waxman. In letters issued Friday, Waxman called on each of these CEOs to appear before his committee for the absurd purpose of defending internal memos to their own employees, and related statements to the press, about the impending changes in their health care plans.

Of course, these CEOs likely had little or no involvement in the estimates about how these new policies would affect their companies. They have hardworking professional staffers and auditors who focus on these issues for a living and make assessments not for the sake of politics but with an eye on what’s best for the company, its shareholders and its employees.

The trouble for Waxman and his fellow Democrat leaders arises from the direct conflict between the (accurate) statements of these companies and Obama’s oft-repeated promises that if you’re happy with your health care, nothing will change.

Obama said in Iowa City last week, “[My opponents] will have to finally acknowledge that this isn’t a government takeover of our health care system. They will see that if Americans like their doctor, they will keep their doctor. If people like their plan, they will keep their plan.”

The ludicrous nature of this claim didn’t prevent Obama from saying it again and again (but these are words, just words) even as the Associated Press, ABC News, FactCheck.org, and a multitude of independent groups found this promise inaccurate at best. These predictions were borne out within the week, as companies warned employees their coverage plans will change in the face of new taxes and cut off tax breaks for providing benefits.

In a regulatory filing last week, AT&T reported, “As a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health-care benefits offered by the company.” It also announced that the health care legislation would result in a $1 billion first quarter non-cash charge against profits.

In some of these cases the companies are required to make 8-K disclosure filings detailing their shifting tax burden under the law. Federal law requires them to make these reports, and these companies would not have filed them if they didn’t have the internal and thorough documentation on the matter.

If the CEOs’ statements or subsequent testimony conflict with internal memos or downplay risks to their companies that eventually come to pass, or if they back off plans to save their shareholders money, they expose their companies and themselves personally to shareholder class-action lawsuits for securities fraud or breach of fiduciary duty. These would be filed, coincidentally enough, by Waxman’s allies in the trial bar.

Thus as CEOs face the choice of a fiduciary breach or a political backlash from partisan Washington, it’s still better to obey the law, even if a powerful Democratic Chairman gives you hell for it.

But compliance with the law is no excuse for embarrassing the President and his Congressional satraps. Waxman’s aims are clear: he must send a powerful signal to American business leaders that any criticism of Obama’s new health care regime, however well-grounded in the facts, will not be tolerated. You can’t govern a country with CEOs running around shooting off their mouths, talking about how your policies will hamstring their companies—especially if they’re telling the truth.

No one should expect these 21st century CEOs to follow Hughes’s example. They have shareholder interests to protect and massive government contracts they could lose. In the new American economy, the best way to get rich is to make something for the government, and no company wants to land on the feds’ enemies list. Even if the CEOs believe that Republicans will soon recapture Congress and send Waxman packing, back to the malodorous impotence of a Ranking Minority Member, they know that there are no certainties in electoral politics and that Congressional Democrats have long memories.

So Waxman’s attempt to add “meme-killer” to his resume in his committee chambers on April 21 is unlikely to be met with stubborn resistance from the CEOs themselves, but the numbers don’t lie.

From the beginning and in defiance of everything known about health care costs, reform was sold by the President and his allies as an economic boon, something that would help ease the burdens of business, lower premium costs, and make everyone happy. But that’s the problem with massive reforms based more on good intentions than on proven policy steps: they tend to run smack into the brick wall of facts. Obamacare is crashing much earlier than any of us expected.

The Daily Caller

This is not an April Fools prank, just a fool . . . and a Congressman.

Ladies and Gentleman, meet Congressman Hank Johnson, a Democrat from Georgia's District 4

Expected CMS Nomination Is Next Step in Health Care Debate

The anticipated nomination of a noted Harvard University scholar to head the agency overseeing Medicare and Medicaid is likely to reignite the health care debate when Congress returns in two weeks from its spring recess.

A White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that the administration plans to nominate Donald M. Berwick to become the new administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

A clinical professor of pediatrics and health policy at Harvard Medical School, Berwick founded the Institute for Healthcare Improvement in 1991 to identify and foster best practices in medicine that would save lives and reduce suffering.

If confirmed, he would take over the long-vacant CMS post as the agency prepares to impose hundreds of billions of dollars of Medicare cost reductions mandated by the new health care overhaul law, as well as undertake an expansion of Medicaid.

The top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee signaled that Berwick would face tough scrutiny at his confirmation hearing.

CQ Politics

Bryant: TRANSPARENCY IN STATE GOVERNMENT

Lt. Governor Phil Bryant Guest Column

In my travels around Mississippi speaking to various groups, I have seen that the voters are demanding more openness and transparency in government. Groups like the Tea Party movement are calling on elected officials to open up the process to include more public participation. As our Founders clearly stated, and elected officials need to better understand, government closest to the people governs best.

As the former State Auditor, I have always believed that the more transparent a government entity is, the more accountable it is to the taxpayers. In my first week of being sworn in as Lt. Governor, I proposed webcasting the Senate proceedings so taxpayers could see their government in action and hold their elected officials accountable. The Senate unanimously approved this innovative, open-government measure. That same year, I formed the Senate Ethics Committee. Through this committee, one of the most comprehensive ethics reform in nearly twenty-five years passed both chambers. Among many things in the bill, required all elected officials to file their ethics reports online.

Those measures did not pass without a struggle. But it is successes like these that make the fight for more openness worth it.

Now in the legislature, the fight for more openness, more accountability and more transparency continues to rage.

Reformers in the capitol have been pushing legislation aimed at adding more oversight to government agencies that hire outside attorneys. Nicknamed the Sunshine Attorney Act, this legislation basically says that when the anticipated fee for legal services exceeds $500,000, the contract with the private lawyers has to be approved by the Personal Service Contract Review Board. This legislation is not aimed at one person or state agency. Not only does this bill bring sunshine to the process of hiring outside counsel, it’s simply good government. After passing the Senate, SB 3059 unfortunately died in House Committee and never came up for a vote.

Lastly, the Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation making those who violate the open meetings law pay their own fines. Again, I have a simple belief that people blatantly violating the open meetings law should be personally responsible for their violations. As it stands now, because of a procedural move in the House of Representatives the taxpayer will continue to pay the bills for officials who disobey our current Open Meetings Law.

The Mississippi legislature should be making Mississippi one of the most open and accountable states in the nation. People throughout Mississippi have been calling for a more open government, and it’s time members of the legislature hear their call.

Christian Charity: Social Justice and the Good Samaritan

By Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson

Charity—a loving spirit concretely expressed in unselfish good deeds to one’s fellow man—is a primary Christian duty. Nobody who has read the New Testament can come to any other conclusion.

In his parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37), Jesus explains what it means to love one’s neighbor as oneself. When the Samaritan happened to encounter a man who had been badly hurt by robbers, he compassionately ministered to the man’s needs. This was in stark contrast to two other men who already had seen the wounded man and left without helping him. The vivid contrast was made even more stark by the fact that the merciful man was a Samaritan, whom Jesus’ own people, the Jews, despised as religious inferiors, while the heartless men who ignored the victim’s plight—a priest and a Levite—came from the ranks of the religious elite.

The good Samaritan gave what he could to help the wounded man. He first took care of him himself, and then, when his own pre-existing commitments necessitated his departure, he paid an innkeeper to nurse the man back to health.

In this famous parable, Jesus illustrated, with exquisite (and typical) brevity and simplicity, the two forms of Christian charity: first, assistance provided personally and directly to another; second, rendering assistance indirectly by donating one’s own property to those who have the time and skills to tend to those in need, in lieu of our own hands-on assistance.

As a thought experiment, let’s imagine the story of the good Samaritan taking a different twist. Let’s suppose that the Samaritan, upon spotting the badly wounded man, also sees a rich man walking by. Let us then suppose that the Samaritan is a big, powerful man who intimidates the rich man into handing over enough money to pay for the wounded man’s care. The man in need would still receive the help that he so desperately needs, but would the Samaritan still touch our heart, and would he have acted selflessly? Would we remember him as a paragon of Christian virtue and charity?

Jesus had not demanded that the Samaritan take money from strangers on the street by threat of force. That wouldn’t feel right, would it?

The obvious difference, of course, is that in Jesus’ parable, the Samaritan acts voluntarily—out of the goodness of his own heart—whereas in my hypothetical, counterfeit version, the Samaritan engages in an ersatz pseudo-charity by forcing someone else to pay for the good deed that the Samaritan wants to be performed. Is it true charity to be generous with other people’s money?

This is the murky moral territory onto which many Christians stray in the name of “social justice” or the social gospel. The desire to help those in need is laudable, but the means often employed by advocates of “social justice” are not.

Many Christians commit a fundamental error when they call for government to redistribute wealth to the poor, the sick, the needy. Government necessarily introduces the additional factor of compulsion into the equation, as government employs organized force.

If we wouldn’t justify an individual collecting funds for the poor by threatening passersby, then how do we justify government using the threat of fines or imprisonment to extract property from some to give it to others? In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “It is strangely absurd [to suppose] that a million human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind (or liberate) each of them separately.”

This isn’t to say that no collective action should be taken to minister to the poor. Indeed, many churches and various private-sector charities are doing praiseworthy work for those in need, and they merit our financial support. The common factor, though, in these nongovernmental organizations is that participation is voluntary. Nobody compels you to belong to a certain church or contribute to a specific charitable organization. It is your prerogative and choice.

By all means, be charitable. But don’t mix charity with compulsion. Jesus never did.

Clones are people, too?

It appears that the drive to place an abortion ban on the 2011 ballot in Mississippi has been successful. I don't believe in abortion, personally. And I may come around to participating in the discussion, yet again. But at present this one is getting filed under "Here We Go Again". Don't we know the ultimate ending to this already?

I have to admit I was taken aback by one part of the proposal.

Under the proposal, a person would be defined "to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the equivalent thereof."

So, now we are protecting clones too? That one made me giggle a little. First we don't want science to create life, because that's God's job. But, if they do, then we'll love them just the same.


Abortion opponents in Miss. clear petition bar

Abortion opponents have enough signatures to put an anti-abortion proposal on next year's ballot, making Mississippi the second state in the nation where the initiative has reached that point.

In 2011, voters will be asked to support a ballot initiative that would give unborn fetuses human rights in the state constitution. A similar proposal goes before Colorado voters this fall.

Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann said Thursday the petitioners got more than the minimum 89,285 signatures required to get the initiative before voters.

The grassroots effort had the support of Republican Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant, who recorded a telephone message that was sent to thousands of Mississippians urging them to sign the petition.

Under the proposal, a person would be defined "to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the equivalent thereof."

Keith Mason, co-founder of Personhood USA, a group formed to support similar initiatives across the country, said Mississippi was chosen because "it's the most pro-life state in America."

Mississippi has one of the nation's toughest abortion laws, requiring the consent of both parents for minors and a 24-hour waiting period and counseling before all abortions.

Michele Colon, a social justice activist and a former National Organization for Women board member, said a campaign to oppose the measure would be launched. Colon said she will work with a coalition of groups on community outreach.

"It's unconstitutional. It's harmful legislation against the women of Mississippi regarding their reproductive health care," Colon said.

Read the rest at The Sun Herald

AP: Another Louisiana oyster-harvesting area closed

by Associated Press

BATON ROUGE, La. — For the third time in a week, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals has closed an oyster harvesting area because of an outbreak of illness.

This time, it’s “Area 13,” west of the Mississippi River in southern Jefferson and Lafourche parishes.

Last Wednesday, the department closed an area in Plaquemines Parish because of a norovirus outbreak in Mississippi. On Thursday, part of St. Bernard Parish waters were closed to mollusc harvest because of another outbreak.

Both of those areas are east of the Mississippi River and more than 60 miles from the latest area closed.

MBJ

The Foundry: Don’t Be Fooled by Obama’s Offshore Drilling Announcement

The increased economic activity from heavily-populated developing nations like India and China indicates that the demand for oil is likely to increase well into the future. The least we can do is step aside and let companies determine whether these projects are economically feasible.


President Obama said in his announcement today that “This is not a decision that I’ve made lightly.” It should have been. Offshore drilling will create jobs and increase energy supplies without cost to the taxpayer. It will create revenues for financially strapped state governments and increase revenues for federal governments. Unfortunately, we won’t realize many of these benefits because this decision was more about getting “drilling” in the headlines than in our nation’s waters.

The Foundry

Legislation to stop bullying in schools? What a load of crap!

On occasion I tune in to the Gallo Radio Show on my morning drive to catch the hosts latest from the merry-go-round of state and local officials. I have a love/hate relationship with Gallo. He seems to think a bit much of himself sometimes, a necessary evil for a radio host I would imagine. I especially wish he would stop using the term "InDaHouse". Paul, the attempts to be cool aren't working my man. That term left the lexicon of the hip some years ago.

On occasion, Senator Terry "I've got a game show host's voice" Burton sits in. He too has a background in radio so I get the voice deal. I sometimes expect to here him use the phrase, "But Wait! There's More!"

This morning the good Senator had a guest on the show whose name I did not catch. The young lady was speaking in support of legislation to stop bullying in our schools. She of course, had a program, a set of steps on what students should do and, although I didn't hear it said, I'm sure she would be more than happy to work with students and schools and legislators to set up this wonderful program.

When confronted, the young lady suggested students do four things. I don't remember them all, but the gist of it was to step back, stop and think, something else, and "make peace".

What a load!

What this young lady--who incidentally sounded like she may have been just out of her teens--is advocating is nothing more than steps needed to ensure that the child is bullied repeatedly.

I have my own suggestion:

1. Step back--just shy of arm length is preferable. You want to be able to touch the bully.

2. Grit your teeth--Think of absolutely how embarassed this person has made you at this precise moment, think of how absolutely PO'd you are at him/her.

3. Ask yourself--Ask yourself one question, "Where am I stronger, my arms or my legs?"

4. Use the rage--This step is one that allows you to use your own talents and judgement on how best to use them. Based on the answer to the question in step three you can:

        A. Use your arm strength to swing your arm at a high rate of speed planting your fist firmly under the nose of the bully with as much force as possible. (Note: If using this tactic, depending upon the size of the bully, it may be necessary to repeat the step several times.)

       B. Use your leg strength to kick, placing your foot firmly in the genital area of the bully. (Note: If using this tactic, the confrontation is immediately over.)

5. Immediately leave the bully lying on the floor and report to the authorities of the school. If not at school, then report to your parents to receive a pat on the back for standing up for yourself.

Parents, if you are teaching your children to step away and "make peace" then you are part of the problem. Our country is raising a generation of wusses. And now we have some legislators wanting to make it an official practice. We are quickly deteriorating into a country of "poor me's" looking for someone else to bail our ass out of every situation that is uncomfortable.

Feel good utopianites looking to legislate us into a heaven on earth are the reason we will likely never again see the type of grit and determination from our citizens that we saw from the generation that won World War II. It is the "go along, get along" mentality and feel good BS that is furthering that decline.

I understand that not every kid has the ability to stand up for themselves in this way. But, how many people have developed other talents as a result of bullying? How many people have developed a quick wit as a result? How many people have developed the fortitude to stand up and not take no for an answer that has led to some of the worlds greatest innovations? We have all had to deal with bullying in its many forms in the past and we all, no matter our age, will have to deal with it in the future.

Bad things happen. Good people deal with it. This is part of learning.

Teach your kids to take responsibility for themselves and their own lives. Because, if we're all sheep. Then who is protecting the flock?

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.