The Light: Hillary

I am a physician. I am a full-time faculty member at a University hospital, but as an unpaid care-deliverer, I also frequently work in a the real government health care establishment, the VA Hospital, ….not the NIH where the docs can do anything they want. If we, in real life, would do some of the things done at the NIH under the auspices of research (and, by the way, virtually all care at the NIH is research), we would be guilty of Federal crimes such as Medicare Fraud. It is a Federal crime to offer free or discounted care to anyone without offering the same to all Medicare recipients, basically. Your government calls it ‘fraud’.

The real government system exists in the many VA’s of this country. Some are good. Many are horrendous. And none of them are equipped to deal with their mission as stated. Those of us who have seen the returning casualties from Iraq and who also take care of the now-aging Vietnam War patients are acutely aware of the deficiencies. Whomever wrote that recent glorious endorsement giving the VA system the highest grades among the country’s health systems did a marvelous job of cherry picking with blinders so narrow that to those of us who actually work out here, the entire document sounds like fiction based on absolutely no reality.

The one government system for health delivery which actually is working is the TriCare system. This system is available only to those who actually retired from a career of military service. This system gives them choices like most of the rest of us have, with little interference regarding pre-approval. As regards the issue of pre-approval, be informed that the vast majority of pre-approval by insurance carriers is performed by non-experts who actually don’t even qualify as care-givers. I suspect this will be the case with a government directed universal program as well.

In the VA system, for instance, the vast majority (and I’m not exaggerating) of primary care practitioners are not even board certified…not even in general medical specialties! To those of us used to dealing as sub-specialists in systems where we are referred to by board-certified generalists (Internal Medicine or Family Practice) most requests from VA primary care doctors for testing and consultation are pedantic, lack foresight, are unintelligent, inappropriate, and at times a virtual comedy. Large numbers of these instances can be classified as ‘defensive medicine’ requested by poorly trained care-givers all concerned about their employment backed by Directors concerned about career and their budget. By contrast, in the TriCare system virtually all the doctors are board-certified, most are not ‘career militarists’, and therefore do not look at triage decisions as having a negative impact on their personal goals…they think of the patient first. Not so in the VA system.

In the real VA system, which is actually the largest government health system, Department heads, Section Chiefs, etc. are not chosen on the basis of merit. They are chosen from those doctors who have made it a point to join a VA faculty in order to boost their potential retirement income. When a spot comes open, it is filled generally by someone who is ’shutting it down’ at the affiliated University. They are chosen by tenure in the system. In the non-physician category of health care providers at VA’s, incompetence is rampant. Nurses with long service are often promoted to positions where they cannot even provide the care they supervise. In many cases, they have no special expertise in the subspecialty they are supervising.

A veteran with a spouse who has health insurance must utilize the private health insurance before the VA kicks in a dime? In fact, the VA won’t even take care of the deductable when they have been relieved of the responsibility of six-figure treatments. I am a veteran. I could use the VA for my health care, if I so choose. However, I would be forced to drop all my other health insurance or I would be charged for the service. As is the usual case…those who have made a conscious choice to have you and I pay for their health care are completely covered by the VA….until they qualify for medicare. Great system? I would pound that drum quite a bit softer if I were you.

In my opinion, the only government health service that works at all is the TriCare system; and that is because it puts much of the decision-making into the hands of the patient rather than some unqualified generalist or beaurocrat. NIH / NCI / NHLBI don’t count because they aren’t ‘real’. They deliver excellent health care, but only to the chosen few, all within research protocols, and operate under a totally different set of financial rules which, if used by the rest of us, would land us in Leavenworth because outside that system they amount to Medicare Fraud.

Perhaps the government should rethink this health care strategy. Perhaps it should finally place regulation upon the insurance companies. Perhaps it should enact meaningful tort reform instead of protecting the income of the legal profession. Perhaps it should cease it’s incessant outlay and support of studies of ‘alternative therapies’ which has yet, after 10 years and over a billion dollar expense, failed to find a meaningful alternative therapy for anything at all.

Somehow, with the TriCare model, the government hit on a workable idea. Does anyone in government recognize that fact? With Obama’s recent statements and apparent plans, seemingly not.

Thomas D. Sears MD, FACC

CBS/AP reported that SCOTUS found for the white firefighters in the notorious Ricci v. DeStefano case.

Opinion (.pdf) here.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision.

The controversy started when New Haven voided its entire 2003 promotional exam after the results made 18 whites - but no blacks - eligible to become officers. When the city decided to promote no one, the white firefighters called that invalid under the Constitution.

New Haven was worried that if they actually promoted those who scored at the top of the test, they’d be sued. SCOTUS said fear of such a suit wasn’t reason enough to throw out the scores. The 5-4 decision reversed that of the appeals court, which included Judge Sotomayor at the time.

CNN follows up with a story that says 2/3 of those polled felt the high scoring firefighters were discriminated against.

A new national poll suggests that nearly two-thirds of Americans think white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut where discriminated against when the city tossed out the results of a promotion exam after too few minorities scored high enough on the test.
———
A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national survey released Monday morning, as the Supreme Court handed down it’s ruling, indicates that 65 percent of those questioned say the firefighters were victims of discrimination and should get promotions based on the test results, with 31 percent feeling that the city should a new test to make sure minority firefighters were not victims of discrimination.

I’ve heard many arguments about the test used with some arguing that “stereotype threat” was part of the problem as well as the possibility that majority AA schools - because of historic discrimination - are not capable of preparing students for such tests and so AA test-takers are disadvantaged. Some also argue that one of the plaintiffs clearly had an advantage because he could take time off to study for the exam. That same plaintiff also paid a friend to read manuals into a recording because the firefighter has dyslexia.

I think that had that firefighter who paid a friend to read for him been in wonderful schools, he might have more strategies for dealing with dyslexia than resorting to paying someone to create audiobooks. That guy also really really wanted the promotion, so he took the time off (from a second job) to prepare. As for the other arguments of “stereotype threat” and sub-par majority AA schools, I’d like more details on how either is so debilitating that men brave enough to fight fires would not have a way to deal with either.

Given these are real people, exactly what were the problems? Was the test given in a “whites only” space? Were all the proctors white? Did the test use only “white” English (and wouldn’t use of Ebonics be offensive anyway?), were the AA firefighters given less time to study or less time to complete the test? Were they separated into different rooms or scored differently? What, exactly, did the city or the non-black firefighters do to ensure that AA firefighters would not succeed? And if it was not the white firefighters’ fault and not the AA firefighters’ fault, then we should all look at the test. If the test was discriminatory, why did the city only discover that after the fact? Did it use pictures that only showed white firefighters? I’d really like specifics about these arguments.

Wouldn’t it be really interesting to know what the AA firefighters who took the test think about it? Wouldn’t it also be interesting to know what they thought about the city invalidating the test based on AA performance? I just don’t think any firefighter would appreciate that, but maybe they’d point to real issues with the test. I’d like to know.

And is multicultural achievement on a test prima facie proof the test itself is valid? Is any test that has a preponderance of high achievers from any particular group at any time thus discriminatory? Do we need quotas for test results to validate them?

Lastly, many people seem interested in what the reversal means to Sotomayor’s SCOTUS nomination. Personally, I’m more interested in what our “post-racial” President has to say.

It is a scandal. It breaks families and our economy. My first post on the crises in our prisons got a great response from many of you, but we didn’t come up with many solid answers. Then I got an email from the Press Secretary for Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) who had actually seen my toon and story! She sent me a lot of information, and now I have hope. See what you think.

First off, Senator Webb is one of the few politicians I trust. He’s a brilliant, no-nonsense guy with a solid track record and broad, impressive experience base. I would bet his crap tolerance level is zero. So, I wasn’t surprised when I heard what he was doing. In his words:

America’s criminal justice system has deteriorated to the point that it is a national disgrace. Its irregularities and inequities cut against the notion that we are a society founded on fundamental fairness. Our failure to address this problem has caused the nation’s prisons to burst their seams with massive overcrowding, even as our neighborhoods have become more dangerous. We are wasting billions of dollars and diminishing millions of lives. We need to fix the system. Doing so will require a major nationwide recalculation of who goes to prison and for how long and of how we address the long-term consequences of incarceration.

Senator Webb has been concerned about our prisons and the people we stick in them for years, with the last two years spent putting together a plan and supportive coalition. He cites some astounding stats. Check these out:

1. The United States has by far the world’s highest incarceration rate. With five percent of the world’s population, our country now houses twenty-five percent of the world’s reported prisoners!

2. More than 2.38 million Americans are now in prison, and another 5 million remain on probation or parole.

3. Our prison population has skyrocketed over the past two decades as we have incarcerated more people for non-violent crimes and acts driven by mental illness or drug dependence.

4. Four times as many mentally ill people are in prisons than in mental health hospitals.

5. The costs to our federal, state, and local governments of keeping repeat offenders in the criminal justice system continue to grow during a time of increasingly tight budgets.

6. Existing practices too often incarcerate people who do not belong in prison and distract from locking up the more serious, violent offenders who are a threat to our communities.

7. Transnational criminal activity, much of it directed by violent gangs and cartels from Latin America, Asia and Europe, has permeated the country. Mexican cartels alone now operate in more than 230 communities across the country.

8. Mass incarceration of illegal drug users has not curtailed drug usage. The multi-billion dollar illegal drugs industry remains intact, with more dangerous drugs continuing to reach our streets. Incarcerated drug offenders have soared 1200% since 1980.

9. Incarceration for drug crimes has had a disproportionate impact on minority communities, despite virtually identical levels of drug use across racial and ethnic lines.

10. Post-incarceration re-entry programs are haphazard and often nonexistent, undermining public safety and making it extremely difficult for ex-offenders to become full, contributing members of society.

So, what does Senator Webb propose doing about a system that is raiding our treasure and not making our lives any safer?

He is proposing that a commission study this program and come up with solid recommendations. OK, before you say “Holy crap, not another committee” you must understand that some of the best legislation affecting real change in our country has emerged from effective well-run commissions. And the problem is now way too sprawling to approach in any other way.

The National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009, introduced by Senator Jim Webb on March 26, 2009, will create a blue-ribbon commission charged with undertaking an 18-month, top-to-bottom review of our entire criminal justice system. Its task will be to propose concrete, wide ranging reforms designed to responsibly reduce the overall incarceration rate; improve federal and local responses to international and domestic gang violence; restructure our approach to drug policy; improve the treatment of mental illness; improve prison administration; and establish a system for reintegrating ex-offenders.

You know, if I had to pick a person who I thought could come through with something concrete and enduring, Senator Jim Webb would be my choice, even before knowing that his legislation existed. Let’s all watch where this goes.

Bernie Madoff

Having received the maximum 150 years in prison, Bernie Madoff now knows how he will ‘exist’ for the balance of his ‘life.’ Today does not represent the end of the pursuit of justice in this massive fraud, but truly the beginning.

Victims of crime typically look for justice in two forms: restitution and justice “for all” parties involved.

The victims of the Madoff Ponzi scheme will be lucky to receive a small percentage of the monies invested in this fraud. The money is obviously extremely important to all the victims, but there is much more to justice than that.

For justice to truly be served, all of those who aided and abetted this fraud must also be brought to justice and pay the maximum price. To think that Bernie Madoff managed this scheme by himself is beyond naive. The Wall Street Journal highlights as much in writing, For Victims, Downsized Lives and Many Shattered Dreams:

“I hope he has to go to jail forever,” said Sheila Ennis, 63, of Manhattan Beach, Calif. “I hope they get all his assets, and I do feel others were involved. But now it’s a question of how we fix things for ourselves.”

Not unlike losing a loved one, victims of crime also need closure. That closure is only possible when every individual involved in the crime pays!! A financial settlement with Ruth Madoff should not preclude a potential indictment of her or her sons. Others directly and indirectly involved in this fraud also need to be fully investigated. To do otherwise would be a miscarriage of justice. If those investigations were to cross into government offices, then so be it, because justice neglected is justice denied!

Make no mistake, the fact that Madoff received the maximum allowable sentence is also an indictment of the SEC. Why? The fact that the Madoff Ponzi scheme grew as large as it did was simply a function of the culpability of the SEC. All those at the SEC who never pursued the Madoff fraud over the years should feel real personal and professional shame today.

As we move forward, I can only hope that our country and all who love it view the Madoff sentencing not only as the beginning of justice for the Madoff victims, but also the beginning of real transparency for victims of all financial frauds.

As I write this, though, I am reminded of the thousands of investors and tens of billions of dollars still frozen in Auction-Rate Securities. Those investors have neither restitution, nor justice, nor real media or judicial investigations truly working for them.

As a nation, we have a long way to go to regain our moral stature and promote our markets as being free and open for all.

LD

Three days go, WaPo wrote that the Obama administration was considering an executive order on [keeping in place] “prolonged” detention.

Obama administration officials, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that an order, which would bypass Congress, could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

I like the way the piece suggestes Obama retaining the “authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely” is only because Congress “could stall plans to close . . . Guantanamo Bay.” I’m sure if Congress hopped to Obama’s tune, he’d relinquish that argument, right?? Close Guantanamo tomorrow, right? It’s all Congress’ fault, after all.

Heh. “Anger key supporters.” No kidding. LOTS of ‘bots bought the statement that BO would remove all that was Bush. Not so fast. Still, the WaPo piece has all the feel of a “trial balloon” designed to gauge public acceptance of an idea before actually doing it.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon agrees, but offers some other interesting points.

If you’re interested, do read it. I’ve taken very little and it’s pretty good.

Anonymous trial balloon articles like this one are difficult to comment on because it’s obviously designed to announce that a certain policy is being considered before it’s actually written, and so none of the key details is known. Would Obama’s new detention powers apply only to current “War on Terror” prisoners at places like Guantanamo and Bagram, or would they also apply to future, not-yet-abducted detainees as well? Would these powers apply to detainees picked up anywhere in the world, far away from “war zones”? Would there be any judicial review or other meaningful oversight provisions so that — even in theory — this was something other than the unilateral, unchecked presidential power to detain indefinitely without charges? None of these important details is known (though the article notes that, under one White House proposal, “ongoing detention would be subject to annual presidential review”; the Emperor, sitting alone, will decree once a year whether they must remain in a cage).

Greenwald takes issue with the WaPo article also as sloppy journalism and he’s got a point. He says as a “trial balloon,” the WaPo story is hard to evalutate. But he then outlines what he sees as a pattern of behavior from the BO administration. Greenwald says the BO will work with appropriate agencies and within established practice as long as it gives him what he wants. When it doesn’t, he’ll do an end run.

There has now emerged a very clear — and very disturbing — pattern whereby Obama is willing to use legal mechanisms and recognize the authority of other branches only if he’s assured that he’ll get the outcome he wants. If he can’t get what he wants from those processes, he’ll just assert Bush-like unilateral powers to bypass those processes and do what he wants anyway. In other words, what distinguishes Obama from the first-term Bush is that Obama is willing to indulge the charade that Congress, the courts and the rule of law have some role to play in political outcomes as long as they give him the power he wants. But where those processes impede Obama’s will, he’ll just bypass them and assert the unilateral power to do what he wants anyway (by contrast, the first-term Bush was unwilling to go to Congress to get expanded powers even where Congress was eager to give them to him; the second-term Bush, like Obama, was willing to allow Congress to endorse his radical proposals: hence, the Military Commissions Act, the Protect America Act, the FISA Amendments Act, etc.).

Czars anyone? I mentioned this possibility myself back in January, suggesting that Obama might “fill [cabinet] slots as necessary for political cover and set up a more loyal organization outside official channels.” Then I wondered:

As a practical matter, who do these czars report to? Will they have their own staff? If a local government or, heaven forbid, a citizen wants help on climate change, who ya gonna call? Whose paperwork are you going to fill out and who will be accountable to you? When the office of the czar inevitably points a finger at an existing agency and the agency points to the czar, what will get done?

Back to Greenwald:

This [bypassing other authority and asserting unilateral authority] was also the mentality that shaped Obama’s “civil liberties” speech generally and his “prolonged detention” policy specifically. In that speech, Obama movingly assured us that some of the Guantanamo detainees will be tried in a real court — i.e., only those the DOJ is certain ahead of time they can convict. For those about whom there’s uncertainty, he’s going to create new military commissions to make it easier to obtain convictions, and then try some of the detainees there — i.e., only those they are certain ahead of time they can convict there. For the rest — meaning those about whom Obama can’t be certain he’ll get the outcome he wants in a judicial proceeding or military commission — he’ll just keep them locked up anyway. In other words, he’ll indulge the charade that people he wants to keep in a cage are entitled to some process (a real court or military commissions) only where he knows in advance he will get what he wants; where he doesn’t know that, he’ll bypass those pretty processes and assert the unilateral right to keep them imprisoned anyway.

A government that will give you a trial before imprisoning you only where it knows ahead of time it will win — and, where it doesn’t know that, will just imprison you without a trial — isn’t a government that believes in due process. It’s one that believes in show trials.

And here again, with this Executive Order proposal, we see this same mentality at play. According to the Post article, one motive behind the Executive Order is that “White House officials are increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible.” In other words: we’ll be happy to work with Congress as long as they give us what we want; if they don’t, we’ll just do it anyway using unilateral presidential powers. It’s certainly possible — in fact, I’d say it’s likely — that if Congress passes a preventive detention law, it will be even more Draconian than the one Obama wants. But a President who recognizes Congressional authority only when he likes the outcome — and ignores it when he doesn’t — isn’t a President who actually recognizes Congressional authority at all.

Oh SNAP!!

Greenwald also directed readers to a Rachel Maddow piece (I know, I know) that takes issue with Obama on nearly identical grounds. Worth viewing.

Most of this story was lost in the flurry of Michael Jackson coverage. Still, to anyone paying the least amount of attention, BO’s moves here should not have been a surprise at all. Obama has deliberately asserted that the public has no right to examine his past in the same manner as other candidates. He established something of a shadow cabinet by creating so many czars that he can bypass many if not most of the established agencies and levers of US government. Really, the guy has been saying “do as I say, not as I do” all along. Some just didn’t want to hear it.

So, when is Obama NOT Bush? When he goes to church.

According to Time:

Now, in an unexpected move, Obama has told White House aides that instead of joining a congregation in Washington, D.C., he will follow in George W. Bush’s footsteps and make his primary place of worship Evergreen Chapel, the nondenominational church at Camp David.

Oh, snap.

By now most of you have heard of the “coup” in Honduras. The media, ever ignorant, is going with the story line that the military has ousted a democratic leader. Here’s the AP view:

Police and soldiers clashed with thousands of protesters outside Honduras’ national palace Monday as world leaders from Barack Obama to Hugo Chavez demanded the return of a president ousted in a military coup.

Leftist leaders pulled their ambassadors from Honduras and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called for Hondurans to rise up against those who toppled his ally, Manuel Zelaya.

“We’re ready to support the rebellion of the Honduran people,” Chavez said, though he did not say what kind of support he was offering.

But there is a lot more to this story then most of the press is reporting.

For starters the ousted President, Zelaya, had become close buddies with Chavez of Venezuela and was pushing to over turn the Honduran Constitution that limited Presidents to one term. This was not your typical military coup. This had the backing of the legislature and the judiciary. But Zelaya is doing a good job of playing the victim and we have seen a decided leftward tilt throughout Central and South America. Besides Chavez you have the leaders in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia with bona fide ties to the radical left.

This was an ultimate fuck you to the United States by the Hondurans. They did not look to the United States for protection or advice. They acted on their own. In the past the United States has had success working behind the scenes to keep the military out of government. It is now clear that the Honduran power structure does not care what Washington thinks and is going to protect itself from falling under the influence of Venezuela’s Chavez.

The irony here is that the President Zelaya was trying to thwart the law in Honduras and was seeking a Chavez type solution, and yet he is now playing the victim with some success. The WSJ Online adds this snippet:

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court’s order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

What should the US do? I think Hillary’s cautious comments (in contrast to pretty harsh comments last night) this afternoon strike the right tone in contrast to Barack’s condemnation of the Hondurans. Although we normally want to discourage military intervention in politics this time it was justified. The Honduran President decided to usurp the Honduran Constitution. It is important to note that the However, the military move was not motivated by a desire to protect a parochial military issue. A majority of the legislature and the judiciary back what the military did.

The U.S. needs to get engaged. If we let the gang led by Chavez, Castro, Ortega take the lead then we are ceding the people of Honduras to the thuggery of Venezuela’s Chavez.

Here’s my full disclosure. I was the Honduran analyst at the CIA from 1986 thru 1989. I also lived in Honduras running a community development in the campo back in 1978. Honduras is not Guatemala, where you had a government that embarked on a policy of exterminating the Mayan culture. In Honduras the military has been one of the middle class roads for upward mobility. The Honduran military is not a tool of some landed elite. Their intervention sends a pretty strong message that they are not going to sit by idly and let their nation go the way of Venezuela.

I do think it a good thing to reduce pollutants in the air – and whether you believe in manmade climate change or not, I imagine you would agree. I also think the US needs to stop spending $200,000 per minute on foreign oil, and would love to see alternative methods developed and utilized.

The question seems to be whether Cap and Trade is the best method to achieve these goals. (And, how can Congress even make that decision, and vote on the bill when they haven’t read it? Heck, even Carol Browner, Obama’s Energy Czar, hasn’t read it….)

In theory, supporters of Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain shouldn’t be all that opposed to the Cap and Trade bill since all three candidates supported Cap and Trade during the primary. I don’t know if the proposals put forth by Clinton and McCain were similar to Obama’s, since, like Congress, I haven’t read the new bill.

Hillary Clinton and John McCain both supported cap and trade during the primary.

“Under Clinton’s cap-and-trade plan, 100 per cent of carbon credits would be auctioned to polluting companies, with the proceeds going towards new technology investments and a program to help low-income families heat and cool their homes.

She also announced plans to increase investments in energy efficiency and cleantech R&D, set targets for a quarter of US electricity to come from renewables by 2025, and introduce legislation demanding all listed firms report on climate change risks.”

My biggest concern regarding this bill is the argument that it will kill jobs. Obama flat out told his supporters before the election that he would cause their electric bills to skyrocket, so I assume this must not be a concern, at least for the 69 Million who voted for him. But, losing jobs is a major concern, especially now.

Obama – Energy Prices Will Skyrocket

The President’s Budget Director, Peter Orszag, added: “firms would not ultimately bear most of the costs of the [carbon] allowances but instead would pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices….price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program.”

If The Heritage Foundation’s numbers are correct, electricity bills will go up 90%, gasoline will go up 85%, and natural gas will go up 55%.

Without international participation, jobs and emissions will simply shift overseas to countries that require few, if any, environmental protections, harming the global environment as well as the U.S. economy. The jobs and industries that will bear the greatest costs of cap-and-tax are the industries we must keep in America in order to remain a power on the world stage. Quite simply, cap-and-trade caps our growth and trades our jobs.

Does cap and trade lose or create jobs?

Proponents of the Cap and Trade bill claim that it will not cause job loss, just a job shift into green jobs.

“Such a law would impact how much people pay to heat, cool and light their homes (it would cost more); what automobiles they buy and drive (smaller, fuel efficient and hybrid electric); and where they will work (more “green” jobs, meaning more environmentally friendly ones).

Critics of the House bill brand it a “jobs killer.” Yet it would seem more likely to shift jobs. Old, energy-intensive industries and businesses might scale back or disappear. Those green jobs would emerge, propelled by the push for nonpolluting energy sources.”

PBS had a debate about Cap and Trade, the transcript is here.

Link to story.

Cap and trade programs are defined by the US EPA as “an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing sources flexibility in how they comply. Successful cap and trade programs reward innovation, efficiency, and early action and provide strict environmental accountability without inhibiting economic growth”.

“In a cap and trade system for emissions, the government sets a limit to the permissible amount of emissions. This limit is known as a cap, is flexible and is expected to be lowered with time. Depending on the particular system implemented, companies that pollute and cause those emissions can either buy emissions allowances or credits or are given them by the government. The companies can then trade those emissions credits against their emissions or pollution. The choice is then with the company to either trade all their credits and continue polluting at their current level or to implement new procedures and equipment to reduce their emissions. If they reduce their emissions, they don’t need all their emissions credits and can then on sell them to other companies. In this way reducing emissions becomes more financially prudent for the company than to continue polluting.”

The US EPA says that cap and trade systems are best used where:

• Emissions have longer residence times
• The environmental and/or public health concern has broad geographic impacts
• A significant number of sources are responsible for the problem
• The cost of controls varies from source to source
• Emissions can be consistently and accurately measured
• Strong regulatory institutions and financial markets exist

Some pros and cons from AzoCleantech.com:

Pros
• Shinking emissions caps guarantee that specified emissions reductions targets will be met
• Can produce revenue that can be used to help others to reduce their emissions, enhance the exisiting program or bring about faster emissions reductions.
• Encourages rapid adoption of cheap and efficient means for bringing about the largest emissions reductions.
• Increases the value of using new, cleaner companies and technologies rather than maintaining use of historic polluters
• Cap and trade systems have been extensively used in the past and have proved successful

Cons
• Prices of emissions credits can be volatile with large price swings.
• Systems can become complex and cumbersome with large amounts of compliance administration
• Cap and trade systems are best implemented at a regional or national level
• Polluters can be rewarded for past polluting while new, clean technologies don’t get such a windfall

Read here for Differences between Cap and Trade and Carbon taxes, outlined by the Sideline Institute.

From The New Ledger - The Great Climate Tax:

“The proposed carbon mandates under consideration would mean that the United States could not emit more in the year 2050 than we emitted in 1910. This is a daunting task considering that in 1910 the United States had only 92 million people, compared to an estimated 420 million in 2050. The only nations in the world today that emit at the proposed levels are struggling nations, such as Belize, Jordan, Haiti, and Somalia. In order to reach the 80 percent reduction required by cap-and-tax, emissions from the transportation sector would have to drop to zero, as would those from ALL electricity generation, and we would still need to reduce all other sources of greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent.

The costs for such misguided policies are staggering. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently determined that rolling back the clock to reach 1910 emissions levels would cost $864 billion, while some estimates put the number closer to $1.5 trillion, and it will be America’s working families left holding the tab.”

The biggest screw this bill gives to the American people is the massive tax hike. A tax hike that Obama promised wouldn’t happen.

This one cracks me up:

“He’s a tax and spend liberal Democrat… ha ha ha … they say that every time. That ol’ McCain, what a crazy coot. I’m not going to raise your taxes! I’m not a tax and spender. Read my lips…”

So, when I hear something like this, I don’t really believe it, do you?

President Obama called on senators to disregard what he called the “misinformation” offered by critics of his energy bill, which passed the House of Representatives late Friday night despite GOP predictions that it will further damage the economy.

“We must not be prisoners of the past,” he said in his radio and Internet address. “Don’t believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth. It’s just not true.”

“Don’t believe those crazy detractors, all that misinformation. They’re just a bunch of crazy coots!”

Warren Buffet – Cap and Trade is a Huge Tax

Rep. Dingell (D-MI) - Cap and Trade is a Big Tax

Michigan Rep. John Dingell recently said of cap-and-trade, “Nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one…”

And Sen. Sherrod Brown said, “It really does say to manufacturing, ‘Go to China, where they have weaker environmental standards.’ And that’s a very bad message in bad economic times — in any economic times.”

Cap and Trade – What is it? (PRO)

Cap and Trade versus Carbon Tax (CON)

So, where do you stand on Cap and Trade?

I had planned on doing something completely different today - something snarky about John Edwards and Mark Sanford (maybe a video of “Your Cheatin’ Heart” or something), but then I saw this article:

“Gays, Lesbians Rally Over Bar Raid in Fort Worth”

About 18 hours after officers with the Fort Worth Police Department and agents with the Texas Alcoholic Beverages Commission raided a Fort Worth gay bar, about 150 to 200 people gathered on the steps of the Tarrant County Courthouse in downtown Fort Worth Sunday night, June 28, to protest the raid.

Sources have said that seven people were arrested in the raid although witnesses at the scene said many more people were handcuffed with zip ties and taken out of the bar.

One man, identified by his sister as Chad Gibson, was in the intensive care unit at Fort Worth’s JPS Hospital with bleeding in his brain after officers threw him to the ground and used zip-ties to handcuff him.

The raid happened on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall rebellion.

Well, that is some way to mark this inauspicious occasion, isn’t it?? To basically reenact it?? What in the world prompted this, is my question, and others, as well:

Joel Burns, Fort Worth’s first and only openly gay City Council member, was in Houston for the weekend, but came back to Fort Worth in time for the rally at the courthouse.

“We want all citizens of Texas and Fort Worth to know and be assured that the laws of ordinances of our great state and city will be applied fairly, equally and without malice or selective enforcement,” Burns said at the rally, reading from a prepared statement.

“We consider this to be part of ‘The Fort Worth Way’ here. As elected representatives of the city of Fort Worth, we are calling for an immediate and thorough investigation of the actions of the city of Fort Worth police and Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in relation to the incident at the Rainbow Lounge earlier this morning,” Burns said.

In an e-mail communication before noon on Sunday, Burns said he had already talked with Fort Worth Police Chief Jeffrey Halstead who had promised an investigation into the matter. Burns also said at that time that Mayor Pro Tem Kathleen Hicks, who represents the district where the Rainbow Lounge is located, and City Manager Dale A. Fisseler were also already aware of the situation.

Noting that the rainbow Lounge raid came on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, Burns said at the rally, “Unlike 40 years ago, though, the people of this community have elective representation that will make sure our government is accountable and that the rights of all its citizens are protected.”

Well, yeah, maybe so, but AFTER the fact. How about the citizens being protected in the FIRST place instead of being beaten and handcuffed? Just asking. But Representative Burns is dealing on that:

Burns said he is working with Mayor Mike Moncrief, Halstead, the Fort Worth Human Relations Commission and “our state legislative colleagues” to get “a complete and accurate accounting of what occurred.”

Burns added, “Rest assured that neither the people of Fort Worth, nor the city government of Fort Worth, will tolerate discrimination against any of its citizens. And known that the GLBT community is an integral part of the economic and cultural life of Fort Worth.

“Every Fort Worth citizen deserves to have questions around this incident answered and we are all working aggressively toward that end,” Burns said.

Lisa Thomas, Burns’ appointee to the city’s Human Relations Commission, also spoke at the rally, as did Todd Camp and Chuck Potter, two men who were at the bar when the raid happened and who were the primary organizers of Sunday’s two rallies.

Camp, referring to eyewitness accounts of the raid and to photographs that Potter took as the raid was occurring, said at the rally that “evidence demonstrates that the Fort Worth Police Department and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissioner over-reacted and used excessive, perhaps brutal force … .”

“The circumstances of the police action strongly suggest that elements of the law enforcement community selectively targeted a recently opened gay and lesbian establishment for selective enforcement and harassment.”

Ya think?? Evidently!! Even their statement is a bit fishy, if you ask me:

Fort Worth police have not returned calls seeking comment placed by Dallas Voice beginning at 10 a.m. Sunday morning. However, Fort Worth police released a statement to several mainstream media outlets saying that Rainbow Lounge was one of three bars targted by six Fort Worth police officers and two TABC agents and a supervisor.

The statement said that nine people were arrested at the first two bars — the Rosedale Saloon and Cowboy Palace, both on Rosedale Avenue — and that another seven people were arrested at Rainbow Lounge.

The statement also said that “an extremely intoxicated patron made sexually explicit movements toward the police supervisor” and that person was arrested for public intoxication.

A second “intoxicated individual” was arrested for public intoxication after making “sexually explicit movements towards another officer,” and a third person assaulted a TABC agent by grabbing his groin. That man was escorted outside and arrested for public intoxication, but was released to paramedics because of his “extreme intoxication” and the fact that he was vomiting repeatedly.

The statement said that while some officers were outside dealing with the vomiting suspect, another officer inside requested assistance in handling an intoxicated patron who was resisting arrest, and that this person was “placed on the ground to control and apprehend him.”

This person was apparently Chad Gibson, who was knocked unconscious and is now hospitalized with a brain injury.

Eyewitnesses to that incident said Gibson, who is “maybe 160 pounds soaking wet,” did not resist arrest but that he did stumble after the first officer grabbed his arm.

Rainbow Lounge owner J.R. Schrock said claims that patrons made sexual advances to the officers and that one patron groped an officer were lies.

“The groping of the police officer — really? We’re gay, but we’re not dumb,” Schrock said to the crowd that gathered at the bar Sunday afternoon. “That is a lie, and I am appalled by it.

“They treat us like outcasts. But even outcasts have a time to shine, and this is it,” Schrock said, pledging that he would not be “scared away” or intimidated into closing his bar. (E-mail nash@dallasvoice.com)

Okay, is it REALLY a surprise that people might be intoxicated AT A BAR??? I mean, I’m no rocket scientist, but that just doesn’t seem so far out of the realm of possibilities.

I reckon it’s a pretty easy defense for the excessive use of force the police used to say these guys “groped” them. Too many people would automatically accept that as more than enough reason to handcuff them, or throw them to the ground and cause a brain injury. An appeal to homophobia to justify one’s actions still works in this country. Sad to say, but true. Just look at the recent statement by Obama’s Justice Department on DOMA.

But I gotta say, the whole thing seems a bit suspect, so personally, I’m not buying what they’re selling. I am glad the GLBT community has a representative on their side in the Fort Worth area, but I have to say, it sure will be nice when the day comes that these kinds of things no longer happen at ALL. In the meantime, I am glad Mr. Shrock is keeping his bar open. More power to him. I hope this is the last of the police he will see in his bar, unless he calls them himself.

John Edwards, he’s cute in an odd sort of way, spends a fortune on his hair, likes to primp in front of the camera, and has an infantile fixation of the phrase *you’re hot*.

He got caught with his panties down, and now, god save us all, there is a sex tape.

“Former presidential candidate John Edwards is out of luck if he hoped that the extramarital affairs of Gov. Mark Sanford and Sen. John Ensign would take people’s minds off his own cheating scandal.

Former Edwards aide Andrew Young says the ex-senator and his former mistress, Rielle Hunter, once made a sex tape, according to someone who has seen Young’s book proposal.

St. Martin’s Press just inked a deal with Young, who also says in his proposal that, contrary to his public statement last year, he is not the father of Hunter’s infant daughter — Edwards is. Edwards has denied that.

Young says that his belief in Edwards ran so deep that he agreed to take the fall for the candidate, inviting the pregnant Hunter to live with him, his wife, Cheri, and their three children. Later, after Hunter delivered the baby, Young and his family moved to a different home in California.”

What? Young is NOT the father of Edward’s baby? I’m shocked! Shocked I tell ya. What did Young tell his kids? “Hey kids, this lady is coming to live with us, and if anyone asks, she is daddy’s secret baby mama. But don’t worry, it’s not true, I’m just covering up for Mr. Edwards, the guy running for President.” Gross.

“While he was unpacking, Young discovered a videocassette, according to the book pitch. Hunter had been hired by the Edwards campaign to videotape the candidate’s movements, but this one is said to have shown him taking positions that weren’t on his official platform.”

“According to our source, Hunter confided to Young that she and Edwards talked about getting married should the candidate’s cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth, pass away, even discussing what music they’d play at their wedding.”

Ok, that is beyond Paris Hilton. That’s like Dr. Evil kind of shit. (No wonder Edwards continued campaigning when Elizabeth announced her cancer was back… he was already making plans for the future. What a pig.) I wonder if Elizabeth is going to do a new round of interviews after hearing this.

But, la pièce de résistance:

“Young’s proposal, which one editor said “was impossible to put down,” also contends that Sen. Edwards frequently clashed with running mate John Kerry during their 2004 race for the White House. And before Edwards owned up to his affair with Hunter, Young says he told him that Barack Obama had promised he’d make him attorney general if he didn’t pick him as his 2008 running mate.”

My guess is that Hillary knew about the affair, and she wouldn’t touch Edwards with a ten foot pole. Obama, however, promised Edwards either a Vice Presidential or Attorney General position. And who did Edwards endorse?

What a neaten headed ho!

With all the fancy foot work going on in Washington while the media celebrates its obsession with all Michael Jackson all the time, I thought you might like something different to start your morning. Enjoy!

_______________

Original Video - More videos at TinyPic
_______________
(h/t BGD)

So what is on your mind this morning?