Hold on your wallets, here comes raising food prices!

Corn Stocks Plunging to 1974 Low as China 

Adds Brazil-Sized Crop to Demand

By Whitney McFerron and Jeff Wilson - Jun 20, 2011 2:02 AM ET
Bloomberg.com

Even a fifth consecutive year of record global corn harvests will fail to meet demand for food, fuel and livestock feed, reducing world stockpiles to the lowest in two generations.

This article is a perfect example of the lunacy of not including food & fuel in the government's official inflation calculations.  The number the government reports bears no resemblance to what people experience in real life.  Of course, I suppose there are the hand full of people, including the president, who have no idea what food and fuel costs because they never go the grocery store or the gas station. That is for their servants and the rest of us "little people".

The funny thing about this article is that it hardly mentions the relationship between corn and fuel prices.

Because of our (the U.S.) screwed up ethanol policy, some 25% of corn produced in the U.S. is used to produce ethanol.  The ratio of fuel used to produce ethanol to actual ethanol produced is 1:1.5 (meaning for every 1 unit of energy  consumed in production of ethanol only 1.5 units of ethanol energy are actually produced).  I suppose that sounds good to most people.  I mean if I could invest a dollar and get back a dollar fifty, who wouldn't do it right?  Wrong. 

In Brazil, the world's largest ethanol producer (& exporter) they make their ethanol from sugar cane.  Sugar cane produces roughly 7-8 units of energy for every unit consumed in production.  This is what has allowed them to become such a large producer/exporter.   Oh, by the way, the U.S. imposes a $.54/gal tax on all imported ethanol from Brazil, so you can forget the free market taking over.

In the meantime we subsidize our own inefficient production of ethanol up to $.45/gal!  (Note: that makes U.S. ethanol $.99/ gallon cheaper that Brazilian ethanol.) Yes, you heard me right, the U.S. government (USDA, actually, though you would think this ought to be handled in the Dept of Energy - but I digress) pays between $.10/gal & $.45/gal  to the ethanol producer as a Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), to the tune of  "$22.6 billion in ethanol subsidies since 2005. [With] Another $31 billion will be spent in the next three years."

So, here's the summary:

• We are channeling 25% of our U.S. corn production away from food and export production to produce a product that;
• is not very efficient to produce;
• provides fewer mpg of fuel and;
• must be subsidized to remain profitable while we;
• exclude the importation of cheaper ethanol into the U.S. by imposing tariffs.

The result is corn prices expected to hit $9/bushel next year which will result in:

• higher food prices for anything containing corn;
• higher feed prices for protein producers (beef, poultry & pork) which will in turn;
• force protein producers to reduce herd/flock sizes which will in turn;
• make protein (beef, poultry & pork) more scarce and therefore much more expensive.

Whew!

But, not to worry, our government knows how to control markets....  Those folks in Washington D.C.can run things better than a free market.  I mean they did such a great job with cash for clunkers.  

Sure they do...  Sure they do...

Besides, excluding food & fuel, inflation in remaining quite steady.  Just don't eat anything or use any energy....

This is a MUST READ by Thomas Sowell....

Seductive Beliefs: Part II

Thomas Sowell 

Townhall.com

Thomas Sowell has been a very keen thinker on the conservative movement for decades.  I believe he has really hit the nail on the head with these very specific descriptions of BHO's stealth messages he spot lights in this article.

Here's just one:

"They say a picture is worth a thousand words. A photograph that should tell us a lot about Barack Obama shows him on the phone, talking with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Obama was seated, leaning back in his chair, with his feet up on the desk, and the soles of his feet pointed directly at the camera. In the Middle East, showing the soles of your feet is an insult, as Obama undoubtedly knows.

This photograph was no accident. Photographers cannot roam around White House, willy-nilly, taking snapshots of the President of the United States as he talks to leaders of foreign nations.
It was a photograph with a message. No one would have known who was on the other end of the line, unless Obama wanted them to know -- and wanted to demonstrate his disdain."

As Mr. Sowell so aptly points out, BHO knows exactly what he is doing.  He does everything for a reason.  He is not prone to go off script like "Plugs" Biden.  BHO's every move, every utterance is very calculated.   When will the MSM pick up on this?  (I know, it's a rhetorical question.)

Is living in a "Post-American World" inevitable?

Back to the Pre-American World

Victor Davis Hanson  

Townhall.com

Here's the skinny:  

"....if American abrogates its preeminent leadership position of the last 65 years, wouldn't the world look a lot like it did in the pre-American days of the 1930s? Then, a Depression-era United States was just one of many powers and reluctant to assert leadership abroad."

Here's some interesting parallel's - then vs now:

"Eighty years ago, a newly Westernized and anti-democratic Japanese powerhouse, in the fashion of today's rising China, was carving out uncontested Asian spheres of influence. An oil-, rubber- and iron-hungry imperial Japan claimed it needed more natural resources to fuel its industrial revolution, and so spread an authoritarian Asian co-prosperity sphere of influence as an alternative to alliance with an economically depressed and psychologically withdrawn America.

Most Americans then were tired anyway of overseas commitments. Our ancestors felt that their considerable sacrifices in World War I either had gone unappreciated or had solved little -- not unlike the way we are becoming exhausted by Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya.
A newly confident, united and ascendant Germany was growing angry at other European countries. It nursed a long list of financial grievances over feeling used and abused. Sound familiar? A weak Britain and France had almost no confidence in their own declining militaries -- sort of like the sad spectacle of their impotence in Libya that we have witnessed over the last two months.

Much-vaunted international institutions, like the bankrupt League of Nations, were about as effective in the role of world watchdogs as the corrupt United Nations is today. Europe and America were emerging from the nightmare of financial insolvency.

The so-called international community cared as much in the 1930s about rising, aggressive totalitarian states in Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia as it does today about ascendant China or Iran. Millions of Jews, then as now, heard crazy threats of their annihilation, and desperately -- and in vain -- looked to the protection of the United States."

Having said all that, he's lists the reasons we don't have to have history repeat itself:

America's known fossil-fuel reserves -- natural gas, oil, coal, shale, tar-sands -- are larger than ever. The problem is not finding more energy but marshaling the will to use the vast new sources of energy we have recently discovered.

"Our military is not just larger than the alternatives, but vastly larger and ever more lethal. Given the enormous size and productivity of the U.S. economy, we have the means -- but not yet the will -- to rapidly pay down our huge debt. In a world short on food, America is the world's greatest agricultural producer.

Other industrialized populations age and decline; ours is still growing. America is widely criticized abroad even as it remains by far the favored destination of global immigrants. Diverse religious practice is still vibrant in the United States. Elsewhere, it is fossilized in Europe, nonexistent in China, and intolerant in the Middle East.

While riots, strikes or revolutions sweep southern Europe and the Middle East, the United States remains stable and quiet -- despite far greater racial, ethnic and religious diversity. Globalization is still mostly a phenomenon of American innovation and originality to be licensed and outsourced abroad."

 So, I don't believe our decline is necessary, much less inevitable.  What we need is a leader who will lay the groundwork for the U.S. to become economic juggernaut it should be.  If the leader is really great, say on the level of Ronald Reagan (aka, Ronuldus Magnus), they could lead countries like China and Russia to shed their communist ways and allow freedom and the rule of law to reign.  Is there a leader out there like that?  Maybe....  

Man's eats 25,000th Big Macs. Michelle Obama has a heart attack!

What's it like to eat 25,000 Big Macs? Ask Don Gorske
HealthPop
CBS News

Fast food restaurants get lots of criticism for serving up fatty, salty, calorie-dense fare. But Don Gorske has no complaints. The 57-year-old retired prison guard was just honored at his hometown McDonalds for eating his 25,000th Big Mac - a feat that took him 39 years to accomplish.
Gorske, who was featured in the 2004 documentary "Super Size Me," is slim, takes regular walks, and was recently given a clean bill of health by his doctor.

But, of course, they can't pick on his health, so then he must be crazy.....

Gorske admits his motivation may be more rooted in his mind than his belly. He says he loves numbers and repetition, and suspects he may have obsessive-compulsive disorder. If that's true, he's not alone. More than 2.2 million Americans have obsessive-compulsive disorder, and experts say food is often a focus.

There's a lesson here if you read closely...

IMF Chief Ordered Held Without Bail in Sexual Assault Case

By Jana Winter

Published May 16, 2011

FoxNews.com

Despite DNA being found and all no evidence to conflict with the maid's story, how does the IMF respond?


Here's the 17th paragraph of the story:

The IMF has said they would deny immunity because the alleged assault occurred when Strauss-Kahn was on a personal visit, not a business trip.

I guess we can all breath a sigh of relief that the IMF Chief was visiting NY on "personal business" or he would have been able to walk away Scott-free....  


Remember, these are the people, the IMF, who will one day be bailing out the U.S. economy.  So, I guess I'm glad to see they people of high morals and strong ethics.

10 Myths of Ryan's House Budget Plan | The Heritage Foundation

Follow the link to read the detailed explanation of each myth.... 

Myth #1: The House budget recklessly cuts taxes by $4 trillion.
Fact: It cancels a future tax increase.

Myth #2: The House budget increases the deficit by giving tax cuts to the rich.
Fact: The proposed change is a revenue-neutral tax reform plan that simplifies the tax code.

Myth #3: The House budget represents only minor deficit reduction.

Fact: It substantially reduces both short- and long-term budget deficits.

Myth #4: The House budget exaggerates the long-term spending challenge.
Fact: The challenge is real and potentially calamitous.

Myth #5: The House budget balances the budget on the backs of seniors.

Fact: Current and near-retirees are exempt from reforms.

Myth #6: The House budget would privatize Medicare and hand seniors vouchers.
Fact: Seniors would receive government support to purchase health insurance coverage on a tightly regulated government exchange system.

Myth #7: Medicare is more efficient than private health insurance.
Fact: Medicare’s administrative burdens are hidden and they outweigh private-sector costs.

Myth #8: The House budget plan would end Medicare as we know it.
Fact: Obamacare ended Medicare as we know it.

Myth #9: The House budget plan would shift Medicaid costs to the states and hurt the poor.
Fact: Medicaid block grants would help states lower Medicaid costs and provide them with the flexibility to better serve the poor.

Myth #10: Most Medicare costs would continue to rise, and retirees would bear those costs with insufficient assistance.
Fact: Intense market competition would reduce costs and enable Medicare patients to secure value for their dollars.

Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Research Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies; Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., is Senior Fellow in the Center for Policy Innovation; and Romina Boccia is Research Coordinator in the Roe Institute at The Heritage Foundation.

Agreed.

Killing Osama

Oliver North

Townhall.com

....highly successful operation validates Ronald Reagan's maxim for terrorists after U.S. Navy SEALs captured the murderous hijackers of the Achille Lauro in October 1985: "You can run, but you can't hide." Afterward, one of the participants penned a corollary: "Don't bother to run -- you will only die tired."

I have to agree with his conclusion that we should never have said whether or not we got Osama.  I mean why broadcast it?  Why not let Al Qada figure it out for themselves?  Why all the chest beating?  Especially when comes to the release of "the treasure trove" of files and data Obama discussed on '60 Minutes'.  Instead of our enemy knowing we killed their de facto leader and taking all his communications dating back years, had we said nothing, Al Qeda would likely have continued communicating at least for several days, but possibly weeks or months, in normal patterns and we would have been tracking them the entire time.  But, sadly we have a man-child president, who is only thinking about his political future, who needed to be propped up by his "gutsy call".  

In fact, like Col. North, I'd agree BHO had no choice, really. The compound was too close to a Pakistani army base to strike with a drone and had it ever leaked that he potentially had OBL in his sights and did not take him it would destroy, forever, any chance of his re-election, his legacy and potentially the entire Democrat Party.  After all, Bill Clinton was the first to be offered OBL (twice) and did not take it.  If two Democrats had had a shot and not taken it, I doubt the American public would ever again trust a Democrat as commander-in-chief.  Col. North also points out:

A "we will not confirm or deny" statement from the White House in the aftermath of the JSOC operation would have made it more difficult in the short-term for Obama to appear "decisive" and "hands on." But years from now, when the full story was finally revealed, he would have been seen as more "presidential." It also would have made it easier for those friends we do have in Pakistan to continue cooperating with our military and intelligence services.

Oh the horror!

New London Graduation Requirement:

Speak English

Only 16 percent of 10th graders test at the highest levels.

By LeAnne Gendreau

"Students in New London [CT] will not only have to pass English to graduate, but they will have to prove that they know the American English language and be able to demonstrate it as of 2015."

The next thing you know they'll want them to be able to do math and know history!  Oh the horror!  The humanity!  


How long until the ACLU fights this? 

How did this get through the Obama policy censors at CBS...?

Belated Congratulations to Our Special Forces AND President Obama

Yes.  I said it.  Congratulations to our Special Forces and President Obama.  It has been a week of great emotion regarding the killing of Osama/Usama bin Laden.  My first reaction was, "We finally got the bastard."  Then I heard about the burial at sea and got suspicious.  I am now thoroughly convinced OBL is dead.  

Having said that, my next layer of thoughts pertained to, “How did they get him?”  I’ve read, watched and listened to the details of the operation, from the initial code name for the courier coming out a few years ago, to the spotting of the suspicious compound.  All I can say is I'm glad I'm on our side.  

As for the motivation of Obama to order this type of mission, I do believe he apparently does possess some ability to make the correct decisions for the good of the USA.  This is an ability I've been wondering doubt for some time.  It is important to know BHO has this capability, for reasons I'll get back to.  BHO also seems to be willing to take risk.  This was a politically risky move, no doubt about it.  Had the choppers crashed inside Pakistan or had they invaded a compound and killed people that turned out to be innocent civilians, this could have been the end of his presidency and been a very significant international fiasco.   This leads me to believe that despite it being a "gutsy" decision for Obama, he had to be completely convinced OBL was there and that the Special Forces had every contingency covered.  BHO does not make decisions like this quickly or easily.  I see there were reports it took him 16 hours to decide.  I'd say for this president, that is record speed.  I do not begrudge him for taking the time; it has to be a gut wrenching process of weighing all the options and ultimately being the guy on the hook for the success or failure of such an operation.  Barrack Hussein Obama made the right call.  Congratulations Mr. President!

Next, I have to congratulate the intelligence community.  I do not know how they do what they do, but I'm damn glad they do it for us and not them.  The fact that it took years of putting all the pieces of the puzzle together and that the information did not get ignored or confined to a specific agency was nothing less than a bureaucratic miracle.  Many people whose names will never be spoken touched, read, passed on the information that kept the information flow alive.

And, of course, the Special Forces (specifically Navy Seals Team 6, if reports are to be believed) community is simply amazing.  I am convinced they are far deadlier than have ever been portrayed in movies.  These are men of incredible resolve, intellect, bravery who have endured years of brutal training to become the best of the best.  I cannot put into words the esteem in which I hold them, other than to say I am simply in awe.  Congratulations men!  Congratulations from a grateful citizen.

I do believe that the Bush administration ought to be thanked.  It was the resolve of GHWB who put us on the trajectory to find OBL and bring him to justice, "dead or alive".  It was men like Rumsfeld who realized that our armed forced had to be rebuilt to face the reality of a new type of enemy.  Rummy had to turn that ship around ASAP and build up capabilities, some from the ground up, and divert budgets and resources to fight a war like we've never fought before.  It was sweeping action of the Bush administration that reversed Jamie Gorelick's idiotic FISA provision's that allowed 9/11 to occur in the first place. So, congratulations to the men & women who served in the Bush administration that allowed us to have the capabilities to even conduct such a mission to begin with...  If I were a crazy terrorist I would be scared to death of the U.S. because we finish what we start, even when our president’s change through our peaceful election process.

I have a couple more thoughts on this subject.  First, I am a little appalled by all the celebration regarding OBL's death.  Please don't misunderstand me; I am glad we are rid of what was the world's worst homicidal maniac.  But, I find the celebration is a little unseemly for two reasons.  I don't think we are necessarily safer because OBL is dead.  In fact, some would argue that we may now experience a spike in attacks.  We'll see.  Mainly, I hope we are not lulled into a false sense of security.  But, more importantly, I do not believe we should be seen as celebrating because it is simply in bad taste.  It is not humble behavior at all.  I believe it would have been better for the USA to be seen as simply finishing what it said it was going to do.  I don't ever remember John Wayne screaming, "Yippie!  I killed the bastard!"  The Duke simply blew the smoke from the barrel of his gun and re-holstered it, looking at the dead body with disdain and disgust as he got on his horse and rode away.  Classy.  Death, even that of a vile homicidal maniac should not be celebrated.  This war is not over.  

That leads me to my last train if thought regarding the death of OBL.  I am appalled by the lack of gratitude expressed by the "peaceful" Muslims around the world.  If, in fact, OBL represented a dishonest faction of Islam, then they ought to be glad to be rid of him and all he represented.  Aside from Saudi Arabia, no other Muslim country nor any "moderate/peaceful" Muslim leader has said that Islam is better off now that OBL is dead.  That, to me, is an ominous sign.  It leads me to believe that there may not be as many "peace-loving moderate" Muslims in the world.  Maybe, though they have never said so, they secretly reveled in the fact that OBL was able to elude the U.S. for so long. 

I believe we have seen the end of round one in the battle against radical Islamists.  Only time will tell if Islam is a religion of peace, as they say.  

I hope (and pray) for the best but, I am preparing for the worst.

Debt Ceiling, Smebt Ceiling.....

The conservative coup: Now, on the debt ceiling

The Washington Post Opinions

Posted at 09:34 AM ET, 04/29/2011

By Jennifer Rubin

In sum, the Democratic Party has thrown overboard decades of tax ideology (“soak the rich”) and succumbed to the Republicans’ insistence that Keynesian spending must end and fiscal discipline must commence.

The White House has lost control of the fiscal debate and of its own party. (“The White House has condemned efforts to attach additional measures to the debt-ceiling issue. Press secretary Jay Carney has called it ‘a dangerous, risky idea to hold hostage . . . a vote on raising the debt ceiling to any other piece of legislation.’ ”) Now, the White House grudgingly accepts the prospect of spending conditions. I suppose this is, as they say, leading from behind.

I am trying to figure out Ms. Rubin's point.  Is she for the continued stimulus spending binge in Washington?  Does she think we should pass the deficit cap with no strings attached?  Maybe we should just eliminate the deficit cap altogether? 

I'll tell you what, Ms. Rubin.  Why don't you call your credit card company and tell them to remove the limit on your card.  Explain to them how by allowing you to spend ad infinitum, you will be able to take care of your family so much better and grow the economy.  You'll be able to provide a larger house (infrastructure), raise allowances (entitlements),  install some solar panels & a geothermal HVAC system (green technology) , sent all your relatives to Ivy League Schools (education) if only you did not have that nasty spending cap on your credit card.  Explain to them how the economy would grow if you got to build a bigger home, if they spent their allowances on products, how your expenses would decrease due to the solar panels & geo HVAC and how much more successful everyone would be if allowed to go to the best schools...   I'm sure they would lift the cap - no strings attached - right?

Stupid Decisions Continue from the "Least Qualified Person in any Room He Walks Into"...

So, how is our POTUS, or as Rush Limbaugh and I prefer to call him, the "Least Qualified Person in any Room He Walks Into" doing on energy policy?  Let's take a look at how the MSM is portraying his action (or inaction, as the case may be)...

What can Obama do to bring down gas prices?

By Zachary Roth
Wed Apr 27, 11:19 am ET

Here's a rundown of what Obama might do to start bringing gas prices back to earth:

Invest more in renewable energy sources. In a radio address Saturday, Obama called this effort "the key to helping families at the pump and reducing our dependence on foreign oil."

End the $4 billion in subsidies for oil companies. "Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy sources, we need to invest in tomorrow's,"Obama has said.

Root out fraud and manipulation in the oil markets. Obama has said he'll have a Justice Department task force probe whether oil market traders and speculators are "taking advantage of the American people for their own short-term gain."

Boost domestic oil production. "We don't want a repeat of the oil spill that we had in the Gulf last year," Obama said in an interview Tuesday. "But we've got to continue to make sure that U.S. production is strong." That might mean expanding drilling off the coast of Florida, or in Alaska.

Press oil-producing allies like Saudi Arabia to do their part. We need to "let them know," Obama said, "that it's not going to be good for the if our economy is hobbled because of high oil prices."

Work with automakers to increase fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. 

Still, none of these approaches looks likely to have an immediate impact when Americans fill up their tanks. Ending oil subsidies and instead boosting investments in renewables may be good long-term policy, but it would take years for consumers to start feeling the benefits of such shifts  at the pump. LIkewise, increasing  domestic production wouldn't bring prices down any time soon, while raising fuel economy standards is a long-term project requiring a serious buy-in from Congress. And most experts think manipulation of the oil markets account for only a very small part of the recent price spikes, so it's unlikely that cracking down on such practices will have a major impact. As for leaning on Saudi Arabia, the Saudis profit from high prices, so it's far from clear what leverage the United States may have to counter the Saudis' push for market dominance.

All that and nary a word on the one thing that would have the greatest impact on oil prices.   How about fixing our monetary policy?  Since oil is pegged to the dollar and the dollar continues to lose value maybe there is a connection, hmmmmm?  I bet yuan to donuts that George Soros is betting against the dollar and is helping to drive down the currency and thus inflating the price of oil.  Of course, the Chinese Yuan being worth $0.15 is what is driving China's economy which makes us competitors for the same limited supply of oil.  Unfortunately, they have a government whose only concern is China and because of this they have been going around the world buying up oil from places like Venezuela and Africa ...


Add to the stupid monetary policy the stupid ethanol policy and now you double down on higher food prices....  The ratio of the energy obtained from ethanol/energy expended from corn in the U.S. in its production is between 1.3-1.6.  Compare this to Brazil where they make their ethanol from sugar cane which contains far more energy per unit (8.3-10.2) and I'd say we are crazy to try to continue to direct corn from our food supply for such an incidental amount of energy....  But, the ethanol lobby is pretty strong....


And finally we have a no-new-oil-exploration and no-new-oil-leasing policy of our energy department.  We are pumping more of our own oil now, but these are on leases granted by the previous administration (as it can take 6-8 years to develop new wells)....  So where does that leave us in 6-8 years...?

"National Coverage Decisions" (NCD) = Death Panels...

Wow...  Is this for real?  If so, then NCD = the Death Panels everyone was talking about during the debate over Obamacare.  How can a federal agency arbitrarily set rules that trump the decision of the doctor who is actually there on the ground with the patient who may die if not given this course of action?  The rationing of healthcare is beginning and, as per usual, the winners are none other than the lawyers....  God help us....

Georgia hospitals facing federal investigation

by Randy Southerland, Contributing Writer

Atlanta Business Chronicle

Excerpts from the article:

Some of the Georgia’s largest hospitals could face multimillion-dollar losses in Medicare reimbursements, if a new federal investigation finds surgeons do not follow guidelines for patients receiving implantable cardioverter defibrillators. 

The review will determine whether hospitals followed National Coverage Decision (NCD) criteria in determining who should receive the small battery-powered electrical impulse generator. The devices, which cost upward of $35,000 each, detect an abnormal heart rhythm that can cause sudden cardiac death, and then fire an electric jolt to restore a normal heart beat....

The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) sets specific guidelines that prohibit the devices being implanted if the patient has received other types of treatments or procedures prior to the surgery, according to Rebekah Plowman, a partner in the Atlanta office of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP and chair of the firm’s fraud and abuse practice. 

“The government found it was pretty easy to go out and use data mining techniques to see if they or any other hospital had billed for codes associated with a heart attack or other [prohibited] procedure,” [Emphasis & color mine] said Plowman. “Then they send a letter to the hospital asking why we shouldn’t collect the fees we paid back from you.”

The NCD criteria prohibits hospitals implanting the device in patients who have had a heart attack within the last 40 days or undergone procedures such as balloon angioplasty or open-heart surgery within the past 90 days. [Again, emphasis & color mine] [Really?  They just assume that every patient fits this template does not get this procedure?]

...

With the potential for losses so high, hospitals have an incentive to fight the claims.

“What hospitals are doing is hiring lawyers to put everything under attorney-client privilege and then hiring consultants to review the medical records,” said Plowman.

...

Critics of the CMS review contend that its guidelines for when a defibrillator can be implanted, which were issued in 2003, are out of date and haven’t kept up with research. Others point to evidence that doctors implant too many of the devices without regard to evidence-based guidelines that result in medical complications.

A recent Duke University study found that surgeons often strayed from the evidence-based guidelines for when defibrillators should be implanted. Those cases that did not follow the professional recommendations were more likely to produce in-hospital complications and even death.

...

Read more: Georgia hospitals facing federal investigation | Atlanta Business Chronicle 

Maybe Sarah Palin is not so stupid after all......

Chicago style "poly-ticks".....

Michelle Malkin

All the President's Funny Money

Townhall.com 

Ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching. President Obama's perpetual campaign cash-o-matic machine kicks into high gear again this week as the celebrity-in-chief heads to Hollywood for several high-priced fundraisers. But while the Democrats' 2012 re-election team stuffs its hands into every liberal deep pocket in sight, questions about the Obama 2008 campaign finance operation still fester. 

Last week, the laggard watchdogs at the Federal Election Commission announced an audit of the Obama 2008 campaign committee -- which raised a record-setting $750 million. White House flacks are downplaying the probe as a "routine review." 

But there's nothing routine about the nearly $3 million Obama has spent on legal expenses to address federal campaign finance irregularities and inquiries. Roll Call reports that Obama's campaign legal fees have exceeded all other House and presidential campaign committees, including members of Congress under ethics investigations. 

There's nothing routine about the whopping $6 million that Team Obama has refunded to individual donors since Obama took office. 

And there's nothing routine about the 26 warning letters to Obama for America totaling "more than 1,500 pages of questions and data that outlined compliance concerns -- including the longest one ever sent to a presidential candidate," according to Roll Call.

She goes on to describe some of the worst offenses of his campaign contributors, but you know none of this will make the Daily Show.  And if doesn't make the Daily Show, how will any of the Obamaites learn about how crooked he really is..?  I'm just sayin'....

I love Thomas Sowell's writing...

Thomas Sowell 

Taxes and Politics

Here are some great excerpts:

...  We may think of taxes as just a source of government revenue. But tax rates are a big political statement on the left, whether they bring in any revenue or not.
For more than 80 years, the political left has opposed what they call "tax cuts for the rich." But big cuts in very high tax rates ended up bringing in more revenue to the government in the Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush 43 administrations. This included more-- repeat, more-- tax revenue from people in the highest income brackets than before. 

...  After all, "the rich" paid that larger sum of taxes only because their incomes had risen. Their paying a higher share of all taxes doesn't matter to the "progressives," who see high tax rates as a way to take a bigger bite out of the incomes of higher-income people, not just provide more revenue to the government. 

Tax rates are meant to make an ideological statement and promote class-warfare politics, not just bring in revenue. 

....Internal Revenue Service data show that the income of people who were in the lowest income tax bracket in 1996 rose by 91 percent by 2005. But people in the "top one percent" had their incomes drop by 26 percent in those same years. 

There is nothing complicated about this. Most people simply start at the bottom when they are young and their pay rises as they get more experience. Most people in the top one percent are there for only a single year when they happen to have a spike in income. They too are not an enduring class.

More Journalistic Malpractice

Obama to set out budget plan on Wednesday
AFPApril 11, 2011, 8:18 am

Here is all you need to read to know how disingenuous this so-called journalist is:

"Republicans want to slash funds for Medicare, benefits for the elderly, and Medicaid, a health program for people with low income, but Democrats would prefer to make up much of the deficit by raising taxes on the wealthy."

Really?  Is that what the Republicans are proposing?  Medicare "cuts".  Only D.C. politicians and the minions in the MSM can get away with such blatant lies...  There are no "cuts" proposed for people on medicare/medicaid.  They are simply lowering the rate of growth and changes qualifications to means test it, so people like me will not be able to access the "free healthcare" after paying in all these years.  You know what?  I don't care because the country cannot afford it!!!!


And Democrats only raise taxes on the "wealthy".  Really?  That is unless you eat, drink, smoke, use electricity, gasoline, or have a cell phone, credit cards, a bank account or home mortgage.  Then your taxes, either directly or indirectly are going up as well.


What about this do people not understand.  We spend $10,000,000,000 a DAY.  $4,000,000,000 of that is borrowed!  Most of that is borrowed from other countries.  Are people really so stupid, as to believe we can continue this absurd behavior?

Adult conversation

This is how adults talk about the real problems facing our country.  No talk about cowboy poetry or other useless government programs....  FINALLY!!!

Moron Alert...

I'll be the first to admit, up until the last couple years I neither knew, nor cared to know who Paul Krugman was...  But, since the economy tanked and Obama took over, it seems as though the Obama administration has been following his playbook, albeit with a couple less zero's behind his recommendations.  And now Krugman is clamoring for even more spending:

The Mellon Doctrine

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: March 31, 2011

I know he's one of the "smartest men in the room" people, but someone ought to tell him the emperor has no clothes.  His plans are worse than moronic, they are downright dangerous, if only because for some idiotic reason people listen to him.  I guess he must have failed as a financial planner (er, sorry "wealth manager") so he thought he'd try his hand at economics.


Here is but one small sample of how out of touch this guy is...:

"....why would lower wages promote higher employment?"

Really, he said that.  Worse yet, he WROTE that, by which I mean he might have thought it in a flash, but anyone with a half a brain would have realized how nonsensical it would have sounded and thought better about actually saying it (i.e., better to not say anything and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt).  But, no he actually pecked out that sentence on a computer and one would assume he proof read it before submitting it, so he likely wrote and read it (at least once).  And yet, he allowed that sentence to be published.



I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence by pointing out that higher wages do, in fact, lead to higher unemployment, especially among entry level employees, so I won't.  I also won't point out that if a business doesn't have to pay each employee as much per person, they might actually be able to afford to hire a couple more people and those couple more people would generate even more revenue.  And that the greater revenue might lead to greater profit and eventually expansion and the creation of even more jobs...   No, I don't want to insult anyone who might read this by pointing out such a simple, basic,  business principle as that!

 


I can only think of one thing when I read that column.  Moron.