• The Obama Nobel Is Not About Peace

We have suffered a week of apoplexy having endured a bombardment of reasons offered to justify a Nobel Prize awarded for expectations and promises rather than results. Our rationality has been addled as all corners of the MSM meandered through fantastic rationalizations. All appear to have missed the mark. The ideologically motivated radicals dominating the Norwegian Nobel Committee, are not seeking peace in the world, but are making a down payment on fortification for their own agenda. The United States and Canada will pay dearly if this agenda materializes.

Let’s first dispel any doubt that the offered reasons for awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace prize were ungenuine. He hadn’t warmed the king sized bed in the White House when he was nominated, which means that any real evaluation of his authentication as a Nobel awardee, other than the oratory of his campaign, was impossible. In the end, the Nobel Committee stated that it, “… attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” Reality and common sense in both Norway and the White House seem to have vacated the premises.

Promises made by politicians are for electioneering, and they rarely see daylight. Remember when Obama made a bold and firm commitment that he would pull out of Iraq if he were made President? That was a defining and differentiating moment in the race to the Oval Office. Did he do what he committed to do? Are some of his phantasmagorical promises also the delusions of the Norwegian Nobel Committee? We will find an answer in the upcoming Copenhagen climate summit to be held in early December.

140 nations will meet in Copenhagen to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which runs out in 2012, with a global deal supposedly intended to limit CO2 emissions, reduce the destruction of rainforests, and help developing countries to become low-carbon economies. On the surface, the publicly claimed intentions of cleaning up our emissions from our air, our garbage from the oceans, and our toxins from the soil are lofty objectives very deserving of acclamation. The reality that will arise from the United Nations Copenhagen Climate Change Conference will prove to be something altogether different. What is to become the “Copenhagen Agreement,” will in fact be the largest international redistribution of wealth ever undertaken. The Earth and our environment will enjoy no benefit.

On December 10, Obama will receive his award in Oslo, just in time to energize the “Copenhagen” agenda. Whether or not he shows up at the UN meeting, the ideological intensions and expectations have been air freighted in the form a Nobel Prize. The Nobel awarded to Obama is a very personal stimulation to procure his support and therefore the financial commitment of the U.S. to a blueprint claiming to save the world.

The Copenhagen meeting in December will require that the United States and Canada annually transfer billions of dollars to the developing world as “climate debt” for past transgressions in their emissions of CO2. A key element in the penalization process will be the degree to which a developed country meets an allocated allowable emission schedule. Countries like the U.S. and Canada will have a tougher time than most, since it is always the last 10% or 20% that is the most difficult and most expensive to “scrub” from your emissions when you have already done more than most to clean up your own mess.

Developing countries will be using starting points with disastrous emission levels, comparable to that of the U.S. and Canada over a century ago. Minor improvements will give poor countries a leg-up on developed countries. Industrialized countries will in effect be penalized for already having well equipped, technologically advanced infrastructures. Canada in particular will very likely incur the highest penalties per capita since it is a net energy producer with production requiring extensive energy consumption, and it endures cold winters and hot, humid summers. This is not to say that every industrial sector should not strive to reduce its carbon footprint. We all should. The conundrum rests in what methodology to apply to the process and to enforcement given the reality that much has already been done by developed countries, and more is planned since all levels of society have become conscious of the need to reduce pollution.

The transfer payments from developed nations to poor ones will be made through purchases of unused “credits,” as well as through outright payments which will be made over and above the current billions distributed as foreign aid. Developing countries will be compensated for “lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity,” and the funds are to be divinely distributed by the United Nations. The UN will also be the arbiter of good taste in all things CO2 emissionable, including all approvals of emission scrubbing plans and the ensuing allocations of emission credits. The agreement also leaves room for developing countries to do absolutely nothing on emissions should they feel they are not receiving enough technological and financial support from developed countries. How is that for a backdoor to escape adaptation?

An invigorated and supremely powerful United Nations is in the offing. The principal justification for turning the UN into a true world power is this: The most advanced industrialized countries are responsible for global warming which in turn is responsible for the drought and famine being suffered by the poorest nations, ergo, the most developed countries owe cash to the undeveloped ones. How more obvious can the planners be than allowing rich countries to buy offsets rather than make emission cuts at home?

Kyoto’s good intensions have mutated into a politically charged Copenhagen draft agreement for a global plan to redistribute wealth to the tune of an estimated $1.4 trillion over the coming decade, which in and of itself will have little or no impact on pollution. The agreement’s impact on climate change will be even more amorphic, nevertheless, we can expect an abundance of fear mongering on the road to ratification.

Obama’s upcoming acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize and the invisible strings attached to it, while he is quite entitled to claim it, along with his plans for Cap and Trade, may prove to be an enormously expensive exercise for all taxpayers on this continent. The “Copenhagen” supporters on the Nobel Committee, on the other hand, are counting on it.

.... Read more!

• Economy – The Outlook Is Your Outlook

You can listen to conflicting opinions of self proclaimed experts on government activity or lack thereof on “stimulating,” the economy, however, the reality is that the economy’s progress remains in your hands. The top of the financial food chain with the government’s help wants to prejudice your perception toward positive spending.

The American taxpayer is provided an abundance of opinions and fantasies surrounding economic progress packaged as truths, facts or principles. The certitude applied to the delivery of this inspiring radiation has maximum impact on the behavior of the audience.

The vast central swath through the middle of the American political spectrum representing a majority, seeks reasonableness from government. The majority expects its business to be conducted with some integrity, without the encumbrance of concrete boots of left or right extremism demanded by party affiliation. This expectation of common sense, and forthrightness has not been honestly accommodated by politicians. The cost of reaching elected office has so escalated that special interests have become the overwhelming force behind all thrones influencing legislative agendas. As a result, every utterance emanating from a political pulpit has become suspicious.

When Paulson and Geithner browbeat their economically illiterate, and incurious bosses, into bailing too big to fail financial firms, and to launch profligate spending programs, the taxpayers had no input, nor were they provided enough truthful information to know right from wrong. Furthering confusion came in the form of suddenly popular Keynesian economists affirming government stimulus spending. Their continual proclamation of mission accomplished, and the recession is over, has become a tired refrain.

With unemployment hovering at 16%, when you include marginally attached workers and part timers for economic reasons, the principal energy in the system is the government’s $1.25 trillion mortgage support program artificially inflating home prices, borrowed with future taxpayer sweat.

The two principal pulls at opposite ends of the government intervention string, are Financial Stimulus, and Lowering Taxes. The arguments move the cursor of political will along this confusing line with abundant force pulling effectively from both ends. Over the long term, practical evidence suggest that there is little positive impact on GDP from supposed spending multipliers, so the amount spent as financial stimulus will not find itself increased or even mirrored in the amount of the nation’s gross domestic product. From the other side of the great divide, the lowering of taxes has shown some positive affect, however long-term impact has been almost impossible to empirically quantify.

In the middle, rests the most reasonable path which mandates that government, and politics (humans guided by special interests), remain out of the equation altogether, with some leaning toward easing of corporate and personal taxes, and reducing government expenditures. As his will not occur, and as we have seen, the likely reality is for a continuation of tax increases facing the enormous deficit demanding to be satiated.

Your perceptions as consumers, and taxpayers, will impact economic activity. You will dictate the direction, which the economy takes, and through that process, minimize the influence from politicians and experts confusing your judgment with mutable notions of economic confidence. Instilling confidence is intended to move consumers to borrow and spend. Ignore the noise.

As the recession continues, and it will, we should all remain diligent with each dollar we earn, and even more so with each dollar we borrow, unlike the examples set by Washington.

The biggest financial decision we make pertains to our dwellings. We will be hearing newly energized implorations of mortgaging ourselves into evermore elaborate dwellings, or increasing the debt on those we already inhabit. The reality remains that a home’s increasing value should never become a source of newfound cash while we live in it. Perceive your home as an expense if you have purchased one. If you still rent, congratulations, you have bypassed the heavy stress that millions of mortgage borrowers have endured over the past couple of years.

As the ravages of unemployment persist, we can each contribute to a return of long-term national economic stability by viewing each dollar we earn as if it were your last one for a while. The behavior might just be contagious, and will hopefully spread long enough for political representatives to assimilate the message since elections don’t appear to change much in Washington’s behavior.

.... Read more!

• Obama’s Blunder On Iran

We cannot listen to Iran’s Ahmadinejad posturing on the expansion of the Iranian atomic energy program, without recalling Obama’s dramatic reversal on the U.S. land based missile defense system in Europe only days ago. The blunder was not in the reversal, but in its timing and its process.

The degree to which Iran has advanced its uranium enrichment capabilities will remain an unknown factor, and the international community reaction will continue to be perplexed, and marooned in paralysis of fear. Iran will not let anyone into whatever enrichment facility exists. No one will see what the ayatollahs do not wish to make public, sending us into recollections of the disastrous outcome following a long hide-and-seek dance with Saddam Hussein seven years ago. This leaves the world, Israel and the U.S. in particular, with a conundrum of literally seismic proportions. Iran’s nuclear progress is not new, nor is it news. What is new is the loss of one very powerful strategic negotiating tool that could have been useful in addressing Iran’s dangerous belligerence – the land-based European missile defense system.

When Obama backed off the deployment of a missile defense system in Europe, he did so without gaining a single concession from Putin and Russia. Russia had long blustered and railed against the U.S. missile deployment plan. Putin claimed the missiles were intended to threaten Russian sovereignty in the region, and that they were not meant to defend against Iran. The hovering menace from the U.S. was a significant affront to Putin's self-image. Obama’s abrogation of such significant “stance” on behalf of the United States suggests that this Administration learned nothing from the Ronald Reagan approach to international negotiations. Reagan changed the world when he boasted of his Strategic Defense Initiative satellite based defense system. The long list of concessions extracted from Gorbachev by Reagan, as well as his brilliance throughout the process of negotiations, should be compulsory reading for any student of Presidential impact on history.

Disclosure that Obama has known about Iran’s second uranium-enrichment facility all along, and that he has supposedly sprung an international trap for Iran, as some media such as the Washington Post are now suggesting, is peculiar analysis, as well as it is pandering in the extreme. Obama gave up a major negotiating card that could have been used to push Russia toward joining the strengthening of sanctions against Iran. China cannot be counted on to assist any future confrontation with Iran, having taken itself out of the equation with investments in Iran to feed its own requirements for energy and natural resources. The only other power, whose advocacy is truly needed in the region for serious containment of the ayatollahs in Tehran, is Russia. China and Russia provide Iran with enough trade to successfully finance the Ayatollahs through many more elections no matter what sanctions Obama might think of adding to the existing limitations. Iran’s path to becoming a nuclear power appears unobstructed.

The alternative to the controversial land based system being mothballed, according to Obama, is cheaper, quicker and more effective. This means the decision to embrace the new technology is very likely a good one. If you had this information in hand, would you have run headlong into an announcement, given that the planned European shield had been a major thorn under Putin’s belly? The diplomatic clout that the West’s tension with Iran has provided Putin still remains, and no concessions have been extracted, nor are we likely to see any extracted in the near future. Russia’s response has been to provide more rhetoric, and more blustering. The Russian envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, said, “… Americans have simply put their own mistake right. And we are not duty-bound to pay for someone to put their own mistakes right.” Putin will continue to view Iran as an economic opportunity that will be exploited without interference from the West. The threat of crisis and instability in the region will also maintain energy prices at levels that Russia requires to finance its annual operating budget.

Adding to the confusion of signals emanating from the White House, Obama suggested that he could resurrect the European missile defense plan if Russia doesn’t help with the threat presented by Iran. This kind of accessory statement further weakens America’s hand. It suggests a lack of resolve on the initial reversal of the strategy, and it also infers apprehension about the new strategy and the underlying technology. Can America rely on the new capabilities and technologies or not? Are the interceptor capacities more flexible and cost-effective? Are the advanced sensor technologies capable of detecting and tracking enemy missiles, or aren’t they? Why would Obama even hint at such uncertainty?

The signals showered on Americans and their allies by this Administration’s decisions and announcements are confusing, but to Russia, they seem to be welcome and they reinforce its strategy of saber rattling. Sanctions have also not deterred Iran's ayatollahs. Now, with the loss of a major strategic and negotiating option against the Kremlin, the enlistment of the Russian bear’s assistance will undoubtedly be impossible, and will lead to a more belligerent Iran. We can expect an increase in its destabilizing activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its financing of terrorism. The violence we witnessed against the Iranian people after the recent elections should be indication enough that a strategy pursuing, "engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect," as Obama wishes it, is simply just that, … wishful thinking.

.... Read more!

• Health Care – What Are You NOT Hearing?

The lawyers and legal minds holding the joystick of politics in America’s White House and Congress, are afraid to make a move. The administration and legislature are staying away from confronting their friends, and former classmates, in the legal profession.

America is holding fast on its resistance to health care reform. The double talk and confusion from Washington is abundant, however the leadership is unwilling to implement changes that could dramatically reduce health care costs such as those that could easily be acted on pertaining to tort reform. We are provided claims such as those from the “nonpartisan” Congressional Budget Office report that malpractice litigation represents only 2% of health-care costs. This one is very “misleading,” since lawyers have always made up the majority of representatives sitting in Congress. It also purposely ignores the real costs burdened onto physicians, and the costly “actions” they take to protect themselves from being financially wiped out. Insurance premiums are just the beginning of the overhead. Defensive medicine has nothing to do with health care, but with doctors protecting themselves, and there is almost no viable measurement on the hundreds of millions that this truly mounts to.

You could extrapolate some numbers such as the 83% of doctors in Massachusetts who order tests they know are unnecessary in order to minimize their potential liabilities. When doctors already pay up to $250,000 per year in malpractice insurance, it is understandable that protecting themselves as much as they can, comes naturally. This is defensive medicine, … not the good kind, but the expensive kind. These tests are not preventive care defending patients against future illness. These defensive actions come from doctors protecting themselves against lawyers of the ambulance chasing kind. While some doctors can be accused of offensive medicine by ordering extra, not wholly necessary tests, don’t believe for a moment that there can be no agreement on what constitutes defensive medicine. You might also ask yourself on average, and in their general population, would you trust more of the doctor, or would you trust more of the lawyers?

Federal tort reform must be implemented, such as bringing under control the size of verdicts handed down by the courts, as well as placing serious caps on noneconomic and punitive damages. It is also critical that the fees taken by law firms in all such cases be reviewed and percentages controlled and capped. Let’s not submit to the bromide that lawyers are society’s first line of defense against private or civil wrongs. That claim is a virtuous and finespun abstraction on justice, no matter how much we wish it to be a truism. We have been witness to enough abuse of the legal system by lawyers over the past twenty years. It is time to close the open season trial lawyers have enjoyed on the medical profession, and bring the enormous judgments into the realm of reasonableness.

Obama refuses to support limits on liability. Does he really want reform of the medical care system? His words are delivered emphatically, but they are vacuous. He seems incapable of taking a specific stand against his friends and financial supporters in the legal profession. Congress is right behind him from both sides of the isle. Neither Democrats nor Republicans seem willing to launch a determined heads-on confrontation with the waste, although some of the reticence can be explained by the fact that the Democratic party took $47 million in contributions last year from the its benefactors in the legal profession. The lip service we are subjected to is easily dispensed, but accomplishes little. The White House and Congress would demonstrate more honesty if they would only pick a side, … address health care needs of taxpayers OR admit to supporting the very financially supportive legal profession.

There is much to be fixed before you ever get to a complete overhaul of the health care system. When there is a dearth of will to implement partial corrections, or controls, pertaining to waste and abuse in the existing system structure, there can be little hope for serious reform other than pursuit of ideological doctrine. Tort reform would be a start, though only a start, on the long road to an improved and sustainable system.

The American public is right to be suspicious of leadership that will not take immediate and specific action that would reduce an estimated $200 billion dollars from the Nation’s annual medical bill. How can taxpayers not be apprehensive of a program whose point person, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, previously led the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association? This is more assurance that “change,” is not coming.

.... Read more!

• Political Campaign Funding – A Democracy’s Dilemma

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of the restrictions that have been placed on corporate money in politics. The ruling may be one of the Court’s most critical decisions in an age which has seen one Presidential campaign accumulate almost a billion dollars in contributions. When the constitutionality of any far reaching federal law is opposed, it is a matter of national relevance, however, when a law affecting the foundation of the Democracy is challenged, such event should be arousing everyone’s notice and should be at the forefront of all news media outlets.

The case in front of the Supreme Court, Citizens v. Federal Election Commission, revolves around a documentary called “Hillary: The Movie,” produced by Citizens United. Based on Hillary Clinton, the film was banned for violating the McCain-Feingold bill which requires disclosure on funding sources, and stipulates that neither corporate or union treasuries can finance any “ad” pro or con just before a primary.

The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold bill, was the last major piece of legislation passed to control the source of financing for Federal political campaigns. The bill eliminated soft money donations to the national party committees, and restricted the funding of political pronouncements, ads, etc., by corporations, or organizations such as unions and non-profit organizations.

The arguments and presentations beginning tomorrow in front of the Supreme Court, will address a question all voters should take a stand on. Are your rights to free speech the same as the rights of corporations or organizations? Corporations and organizations are not individuals, they do not have the inherent rights of the people, nor do they have the same privileges. They are vehicles created and used by society for diverse purposes. Voters should seek to minimize their further influence on the political process and on the political landscape.

You will hear and read arguments whining that the government is treating organizations big and small, unfairly by prohibiting election advocacy, and is in effect imposing censorship. Some suggest that such treatment of organizations provides them less protection in the eyes of the law than is provided to individuals. The suggestion that organizations should be equal to individuals under the law twists the interpretation of the Constitution beyond common sense, and ignores the fact that current laws provide organizations with rights and privileges not available to individuals. Let’s not let anyone convince us that organizations are “persons.”

You will also hear that the media companies have no restrictions on their election leanings, or that restrictions do not apply to them and should therefore equally not apply to other corporate entities. While it is true that media companies have been given a pass on their ability to “manipulate” opinion, this is not a persuasive argument for overturning laws that in themselves do not go far enough in the restrictions of campaign finance.

The First Amendment of the Constitution explicitly prohibits Congress from infringing on the individual’s freedom of speech (other than inciting government overthrow), and as we long ago learned, free speech is a great freedom, but is not so “free.” While you may be able to shout your ideas, demands or wishes freely out your window to the extremes your lungs will allow without bursting, you will not achieve the reach that well financed organizations are able to affect as they shout at you through your invasive televisions.

This court decision revolves around financing free speech, but at its heart is the impact the decision will have on ability of organizations to influence voter perception. Organizations large and small already have too much influence on the electoral process. Corporations and labor organizations already impact election outcomes through such vehicles as Political Action Committees (PACs), or through the doors of political party organizations. We should note that the billion dollar campaign which carried Barack Obama into the Oval Office could not be audited by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) because the task was too onerous. Do not believe the pretense that the FEC is a watchdog, or does its job of monitoring campaign contributions, much less where and how the money is spent.

Allowing entities to finance the formation of perceptions, places a vast amount of power in the few hands at the helms of those entities, far overreaching the capacities of their “rank and file.” Politics have always been and will always be subject to self-serving influences. As wealth concentration continues unabated, effective control of the political process has already been skewed away from the average taxpayer. Simply put, the CEO of Goldman Sachs reaching into the company coffers has access to more money than you do to impact the outcome of an electoral campaign, and it’s not even his money. Neither shareholders, nor his employees, have any say on the candidate receiving the CEO’s largesse.

Some alternative legislation should be considered, including anonymity of donations, capping personal contributions and matching them with government funds, as well as eliminating all corporate and union political contributions and related loopholes. Beyond cleaning up the abuse of the process, this would bring campaign funding and spending within realms that might foster the advance of alternative parties to the political game on the national stage.

Should the Supreme Court overturn years of tested law in favor of corporate and union spending, it will relegate the taxpaying voter to that of second-class citizen, and insinuate a gigantic crack into the democratic process. No matter what the Supreme Court decides, the voter should take a stand at the poles with facts rather than with the prejudice of well-financed and influential rhetoric and advertisements.

High definition cameras bringing the drama into public consciousness should invade this upcoming Supreme Court hearing, and educate voters on the fundamental process none can take for granted. A Democracy is a very fragile environment demanding fastidious nurturing. “We the people,” was never intended to mean, “We the corporations and unions.”

.... Read more!