WingRight
Media Abuse
We Paid for Those Abortions | National Review Online
A question for @GregAbbott_Tx: When will charges be filed?
Planned Parenthood has been found to be guilty of Medicaid fraud including altering medical records and even making taxpayers pay for abortions! History from California in 2004, New York in 2008, others in New Jersey and Washington state. And now, a settlement for $1.4 Million in 2013 in Texas.
“[W]hat are we to make of a consistent pattern of overbilling and fraud across several states, involving millions upon millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money? Given the impenitent attitude of the Texas affiliates and the Planned Parenthood central command, perhaps it is time to inform Cecile Richards & Co. that orange is the new black.”
Book Review: The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture
The Secret Knowledge
“Success in life comes not from the ability to choose between the four presented answers, but from the rather more difficult and painfully acquired ability to formulate the questions.” Mamet, David (2011-06-02). The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (p. 28). Sentinel Trade. Kindle Edition.
I’m reading “The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture,” by David Mamet. Those of you who follow me on FaceBook or Twitter have probably seen a few quotes that I’ve shared.
I’m afraid that I might be indulging in the same thing Mr. Mamet accuses the Liberal Left of doing: surrounding myself with like-minded thinkers and writers. If so, Mr. Mamet at least expresses himself differently than most of the Conservative writers I read.
As an example, I was struck by his description of the new love story, in which two people who don’t even like each other are thrown together by fate and somehow decide they are meant for each other. This is in contrast to the traditional love story in which a couple first falls in love but are separated by outside forces, finally triumphing by their will to be together. (Compare “Sleepless in Seattle” with the movie it references, “An Affair to Remember.”) The difference is subtle, but one of fatalism vs. making a deliberate, conscious choice.
Mr. Mamet is critical of Liberal Arts education, socialism, “change” and “hope.” He explains why Conservatism is better than Liberalism in phrases that go far beyond sound bites and the bumper sticker he sometimes refers to.
From Amazon’s “Popular Highlights:”
“The Good Causes of the Left may generally be compared to NASCAR; they offer the diversion of watching things go excitingly around in a circle, getting nowhere.”
“The essence of socialism is for Party A to get Party B to give something to Party C.”
“. . . Wrights, Cyrus McCormick, Henry Ford, Tesla, Tom Edison, Meg Whitman, Bill Gates, Burt Rutan, and Steve Jobs. How would they and American Industry have fared had Government gotten its hands upon them at the outset—if it had taxed away the capital necessary to provide a market for their wares; if it had taxed away the wealth, which, existing as gambling money, had taken a chance on these various visionaries? One need not wonder, but merely look around at the various businesses Government has aided.”
“Government itself, where waste is the end product.”
Mr. Mamet’s central point is that culture is the unconscious and pre-verbal adaptation of people that creates predictability, allowing us to get along with one another. When we throw out our culture and try to create a new one, the “change” leads us to uncertainty and the necessity to weigh each new stimulus because we don’t know what it means under the new conditions.
“The tool of culture is the capacity to predict the operation of the social environment—a property right little different from a right in land or wealth. This cultural right exists not limitlessly—for any property right is limited, by chance, death, inflation, erosion, theft, laws, confiscation, etc. but, as with a material property right, founded upon an abstract concept: predictability, which differs from omniscience, but is of immeasurably greater worth than ignorance. Culture exists and evolves to relegate to habit categories of interactions the constant conscious reference to which would make human interaction impossible.”
(Mamet, David (2011-06-02). The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (pp. 12-13). Sentinel Trade. Kindle Edition.)
He compares the new situation to “The First Night in A New Home,” where each creak or thump is unfamiliar, and could mean danger or nothing. No one gets any rest, many will get angry, and far too many will simply stop evaluating those noises for themselves. In societies, those who stop questioning and wish only for peace, end up ceding their will and ability to innovate and create to the herd.
Kindle will let you read the first chapter, free. (I don’t profit from promoting the book.)
La. already has Texas abortion limits | The Town Talk | thetowntalk.com
Louisiana has many of the same restrictions on the books, but they passed with few significant fights in the Legislature and none of the massive protests. The state has added nearly any legal limit it can find on abortion — and several that courts have said weren’t legal.
As they have added new statutes, the bills passed with overwhelming and bipartisan support and with Louisiana lawmakers acknowledging that they hope to lower the number of abortions with each restriction.
Unlike in Texas, Louisiana’s debates don’t showcase a deep divide between Republicans and Democrats. A handful of Democrats oppose the abortion restrictions, but often far more of Louisiana’s Democrats vote to support the measures. A few individuals show up to committee hearings to complain about the latest proposed abortion restrictions, but the bills don’t attract widespread outrage.
via La. already has Texas abortion limits | The Town Talk | thetowntalk.com.
Texas DPS director on “Tampon Gate”
Evidently, there were men who tried to enter the Senate Gallery ith tampons. Sounds suspicious to me!
“The possession of these and other items is not a crime, and therefore, there was no basis to arrest and detain visitors who possessed such items; however, they were denied access unless they discarded the items,” McCraw wrote. “The Department never took possession of these items and had no justification to do so.”
No officer questioned by the San Antonio Express-News or the Texas Tribune could confirm they had confiscated feces or urine or that they had any knowledge of such items being in the Capitol.
McCraw explained the basis for which officers did not allow feminine hygiene products including tampons and sanitary napkins into the gallery.
“The arbitrary prohibition of feminine hygiene products, for example, on its face would seem absurd,” McCraw wrote. “However, the Department received reports that some visitors planned to throw feminine hygiene products onto the Senate floor. One woman attempted to enter the Senate gallery with approximately 100 feminine hygiene products and she was denied access, as were two men who possessed approximately 50 feminine hygiene products each.”
He also said names of visitors with “suspicious jars or other items” were not documented because they did not commit a crime by possessing them and ”it would be unreasonable to document names of visitors based on what they might or might not do.”
Howard responded to McCraw’s with “disappointment with the lack of clarity that he provides.”
“At the end of the day, we are still left with unsubstantiated claims, allegations of suspicious jars but no actual evidence,” she said. “The lack of onsite documentation or eyewitnesses — either from officers or members of the public — seems to undercut the assertions laid out in DPS’ original press release and now their response letter. To be frank, it doesn’t pass the smell test. ”
McCraw added to the list of items that were confiscated and discarded by police including ”paint, confetti, glitter, bottles of bubbles, bags of balloons (not inflated), handheld air horns, a bag full of tomatoes” and two bricks, which were being used to prop doors open and were not going to be used as projectiles, he said.
The Express-News has requested records from the Department of Public Safety regarding the July 12 searches and items discarded.
Standing for Life – The Unfinished Story | Twisted Conservative
Those who #Stand4Life should get to know Jason Vaughn; as one of the effective leaders for life in Texas, he’s making history! Here’s his recount of the events of last week:
Late Friday night we won the battle to reduce abortions in Texas! It was a great night and I am so excited to be a part of history. I’ve said before that the world may never know my name, but perhaps one day I will hear my God say, “Well done my good and faithful servant. You see that man there? I used you to save him from being aborted and I used him to change the world.”
It was a long and tiring week. There were some nights when I fell asleep in my clothes from the day. I had the privilege to work amazing men and women who love the people of Texas and want to see the end of abortion.
For those interested I want to walk you through the week.
Read the rest and see the pictures and videos he uses to document Texas’ #Stand4Life, via Standing for Life – The Unfinished Story | Twisted Conservative.
“Planned Parenthood web ad blurs distinctions” (DMN Fact Check)
So, after telling us all these years that they don’t spend money from tax funds for their abortion business, Planned Parenthood is now saying that their facilities are often in the same buildings as the “separate” affiliates that don’t do abortions and that meeting the standards of an ambulatory care center will shut down both businesses.
Planned Parenthood operates 10 abortion clinics in the state that would be mandated to raise to the new standards. The abortion clinics, by law, are separate entities and must be separately funded from health centers where cancer screenings take place.
Planned Parenthood officials acknowledged that, but said some abortion clinics and health centers are housed within the same buildings. She suggested that if it were too expensive to upgrade the abortion clinics, then it could also force a shut-down of the health care clinics in the same building.
Officials could not say how many of the 10 abortion clinics are adjacent or within the same building as health care centers.
Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, responded by email and cited 55 health care centers already have been shuttered in Texas.
That assertion is based on legislative funding cuts from two years ago and is not related to the pending legislation.
And the previously closed health centers are not related to the assertion made in the advertisement.
Health centers that do not provide abortions would not be affected by the legislation.
via Fact check: Planned Parenthood web ad blurs distinctions | Trail Blazers Blog.
Scientific Huffington Post (!) Poll: Ban Abortion After 20 Weeks
20 week ultrasound
#Stand4Life across the US: 59% support a Federal ban on abortion after 20 weeks, even though the question didn’t include an exception for the life of the mother!
Remember that University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll that showed that 63% or 62% (depending on whether the question mentioned pain or not) of registered voters in Texas wanted a ban on abortion after 20 weeks? Well, it seems that most US voters agree.This poll found that 59% of voters would support a ban, while only 30% oppose it.
The Huffington Post, not a conservative website at all, solicited a scientific poll by the same group that did the UT/TT poll, YouGov. These results agree with last month’s Gallup poll revealing that 64% of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal in the second 3 months of pregnancy and 80% would make it illegal in the last 3 months.
The HuffPost isn’t making a big deal out of the poll, focusing on the conflicting views of the public rather than on the results of the poll itself. In fact, from my GoogleNews search, it doesn’t appear that (as of 7 AM today) anyone other than a couple of blogs (at the Washington Post and the Weekly Standard), National Right to Life, and LifeNews.com are reporting the poll!
Planned Parenthood, big abortion and the battle to save lives in Texas | Fox News
[R]emind me again why pro-abortion activists want healthy five-month pregnant women to abort their healthy child in dirty, unsafe abortion clinics?
via Planned Parenthood, big abortion and the battle to save lives in Texas | Fox News.
#Stand4Life Wendy’s Wasted Voice: Why Fighting the Texas Abortion Bill Was Not ‘Pro-Woman’ « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law Schools, Law Suits, Judges and Courts + Career Resources
Wendy Davis opposed a bill that gives women seeking abortions the same level of safety as women seeking LASIK on a Friday afternoon. Should I have feel empowered as a Texas woman that I can currently get a D&E for an unplanned pregnancy at a place with lower standards than where I could get a endoscopy for an acid reflux diagnosis? What is so “pro-woman” about lower health and safety standards for abortions?
Skewed world view or just politics? @GovernorPerry #SB5 #TxProlife
“Who are we to say that children born into the worst of circumstances can’t grow to live successful lives?” he said, adding that even Davis “was born into difficult circumstances.”
“I know she’s proud of where she has found herself in life,” Perry told reporters after his speech. “I’m proud that she has been able to take advantage of her intellect and her hard work, but she didn’t come from particularly good circumstances.”
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram is the source of these quotes, which they call a “swipe” by the Governor toward Senator Davis. Radio Fox News called it “Slut Slamming.”
How sad that the editors who wrote these titles cannot see these statements as compliments.
Update: fixed the links. BBN
“Cognitive dissonance” vs. “right or wrong”
Another study claims to find psychological differences between conservatives and liberals:
In two experiments, we investigated the possibility that conservatives would be more strongly motivated to avoid dissonance-arousing tasks than liberals.
The task?
“Because we were interested in reactions to dissonance-arousing situations, all participants were asked to write counter-attitudinal essays. Thus, if a participant indicated in the initial survey that he or she preferred George W. Bush and Macs over Barack Obama and PCs, respectively, this participant would be instructed to write essays arguing that Obama is a better president than Bush and that PCs are better computers than Macs. Participants assigned to the high choice condition were able to respond “yes” or “no” to the request; if they responded “yes,” they were directed to the essay task, and if they responded “no,” they were instead taken to the next section of the experiment. Participants assigned to the low choice condition were simply directed to the essay-writing task.”
My title reveals my own dissonance with the authors. If there’s no right or wrong, if all views are of equal weight and validity, why argue – or do research – in the first place?
The authors begin with a weak premise: that subjects’ willingness to write a positive essay about a given politician (in this case Bush vs. Obama and Reagan vs. Clinton) reveals their comfort with “cognitive dissonance” (Miriam-Webster definition, here. “Simply Psychology” discussion, here), or the ability or willingness to hold two different beliefs at one time. The classic example is knowing that smoking is bad for you while continuing to smoke.
In fact, they found that while not one conservative was willing to voluntarily write an essay claiming that Obama is better than Bush, conservatives were more likely to follow explicit instructions when not given a choice. In addition, there was no real difference between conservative and liberal participants/ willingness to write “dissonance-arousing” essays about non-political issues like Macs vs PCs or tea vs. coffee.
The authors do not mention principles at all and only use the word, “values” in the discussion about statistics and in the following sentence,
“Subsequent research in psychology and neuroscience has corroborated the notion that, all other things being equal, adherence to conservative (vs. liberal) ideology is associated with certainty-oriented forms of epistemic motivation and behavior, including . . . a reluctance to acknowledge and engage in integrative policy trade-offs involving potentially conflicting values.“
I’m used to having conflicting views on certain topics. When confronted with the evidence in real life, I try to admit that the dichotomy exists and, for important issues, weigh the importance of one in favor of the other. That doesn’t mean that I’d easily lie or betray my values for the sake of “policy trade-offs,” much less in voluntary participation in an experiment. (I would have been one of the refusals in the “low choice” arm.)
As an example, I was once asked to write an opinion on a sexual abuse case, assuming that I’d be testifying on the side of the victim. When I learned that the attorney was working for the defendant, I could only continue after deciding that I had an obligation to keep my word, that my problem was my fault for not asking more questions, and that the facts of the case were such that I wouldn’t really be much help for the defense, anyway. I even explained the latter to the attorney before writing and billing for my opinion.
At least the authors do admit that “many people hold stronger attitudes about political than non-political matters.”
Texas Catholic Bishops Conference Rebukes “Texas Right to Life”
Using words such as “egregious,” “cynical,” “outrageous,” and “deceive,” the Texas Catholic Bishops Conference have published the letter that they sent to Texas Legislators concerning the actions of Texas Right to Life concerning Senate Bill 303 and its companion, House Bill 1444 on April 15, 2013.
Since employees and representatives of TRL continue to “stoke fear through ridiculous claims,” (and to harass those who support the Bills) here’s the letter (I’ve reproduced the emphasis is in the original):
The Texas Catholic Conference is compelled to publicly correct the misstatements and fabrications that continue to be perpetuated by the Texas Right to Life organization against legislation to improve end-of-life care by reforming the Texas Advance Directives Act.
It has been said that all is fair in love, war and Texas politics. However, the actions of Texas Right to Life have been so egregious and cynical, especially when comes to misrepresenting the moral and theological doctrine of the Catholic Church, that the TCC cannot stay silent.
Texas’ Advance Directives Act needs reform. Current law lacks clarity given the complexity of end-of-life care, contains definitions that could permit the withdrawal of care for patients – including food and water – and permits unilateral Do Not Resuscitate Orders without the permission of, or even consultation with, the family.
Senate Bill 303 and House Bill 1444 are based on Catholic moral principles and reasonable medical standards for defending human life and protecting the conscience of both families and physicians. Both billsprevent unilateral DNRs, improve communication between medical providers and families, ensure a clear and balanced process for resolving differences, and give families the right to challenge Do Not Resuscitate Orders before a medical ethics committee.
In both its materials and communications with legislative offices and staff, Texas Right to Life has tried to stoke fear through ridiculous claims of nonexistent “death panels” and assertions that doctors are “secretly trying to kill patients.” Both claims are absurd. The truth is, many factors are involved in the sausage-grinding process of public policymaking. Some have less to do with making good laws and more about individual personalities and fundraising opportunities of organizations.
It is outrageous that an organization purportedly committed to the rights and dignity of life would resort to such disingenuous tactics that deceive honest and caring people. What is worse is doing so in a way that perpetuates current law and may cause unnecessary patient suffering.
Texas Right to Life has no authority to articulate Catholic moral teaching, and certainly does not have permission to represent the views of the Roman Catholic Bishops of Texas. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at the Texas Catholic Conference. We are more than happy to answer any questions or provide the Texas Catholic Bishops’ position on any issue before the Legislature.
(Edited for spelling and grammar, 4/25/13 BBN)
NIH funded study: “the tobacco industry and the Tea Party”
How reliable is a US government funded study that uses the term, “astroturf?”
Research using your tax dollars is under scrutiny – once again – and the subject of recent hearings in Congress. The National Cancer Institute, a wing of the National Institutes of Health, paid for this “study.” It was published in a “peer reviewed” journal, Tobacco Control, one of the “BMJ Group” (British Medical Journal) publications.
Discussion
The tobacco companies have refined their astroturf tactics since at least the 1980s and leveraged their resources to support and sustain a network of organisations that have developed into some of the Tea Party organisations of 2012.
***
What this paper adds
Rather than being a grassroots movement that spontaneously developed in 2009, the Tea Party organisations have had connections to the tobacco companies since the 1980s. The cigarette companies funded and worked through Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), the predecessor of Tea Party organisations, Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, to accomplish their economic and political agenda. There has been continuity of some key players, strategies and messages from these groups to Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks and other Tea Party-related organisations.
***
Funding This research was funded by National Cancer Institute grants CA-113710 and CA-087472. The funding agency played no role in the selection of the research topic, conduct of the research or preparation of the manuscript. SAG is American Legacy Foundation Distinguished Professor in Tobacco Control.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Nurses quit Planned Parenthood because of ‘dangerous and dirty work conditions’
Guess what? Virtually no media notice!
Two Planned Parenthood nurses quit their jobs because of dirty and dangerous work conditions and what they called ‘a meat-market style of assembly-line abortions’.
The former employees of the Delaware branch have spoken out about what allegedly takes place behind its closed doors and said that a rush to get patients in and out leaves the operating tables soiled and unclean and that doctors don’t wear gloves.
Jayne Mitchell-Werbrich, former employee said: ‘It was just unsafe. I couldn’t tell you how ridiculously unsafe it was.
‘It’s not washed down, it’s not even cleaned off. It has bloody drainage on it.’
Statistics and “Peer Review”
Typical of the reporting
on the connection between abortion and breast cancer, a blogger at “RhealityCheck,” only reports half a sentence – the half that she likes.
I don’t know how long my comments will stay up, so here’s my part:
The author only quoted half a sentence. The article clearly states, “Induced abortion had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer, but we found a statistically significant increase in risk among women with a history of second-trimester abortion.”
and
And here’s the link to the article in question. Please note that even this research must adjust for the age at first pregnancy and for number of pregnancies.
My testimony begins at 1 hour, 12 minutes in on the video of the hearing. I actually focused on the protective effect of pregnancy, especially early pregnancy, according to the National Cancer Institute. This information is only given to women and girls who are already pregnant, after all.
Interestingly, we learned how little the Committee members understood about scientific research and resources. Follow the hours of testimony on HB 2945 and HB 2365 and Rep.Jessica Farrar’s obsession and apparent slow realization about the meaning and significance of “peer review” and “PubMed” and “Medline.“At one point, 1:26, Ms. Farrar, who admits that she “barely got through biology,” asks whether the research was “peer reviewed” by “the Medline or PubMed.”
As the day went on, it seems that Farrar was educated that peer review is conducted by the Journals themselves, and that PubMed and Medline are merely indexes of scientifc literature.
Shooter Used Southern Poverty Law Center’s Website to Identify FRC as Target
By the way, the victim’s name is Leo Johnson.
FRC’s Tony Perkins again calls on SPLC to Stop Reckless Labeling of Christian Organizations
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Earlier today, Floyd Lee Corkins, II, pleaded guilty to three charges including a District of Columbia charge of committing an act of terrorism. The charges stem from the August 15, 2012 shooting at the Family Research Council’s headquarters.
Today’s hearing also revealed that in the interview with the FBI right after the shooting, the shooter admitted his guilt, which was captured on video. He said he intended to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces, and kill the guard.” The prosecutor said they reviewed the family computer and found that he identified his targets on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s web site.
read more via Shooter Used Southern Poverty Law Center’s Website to Identify FRC as Target.
NY Newspaper Draws Flak for Map of Gun Owners – Updated
The purpose of the Second Amendment is not the delivery of bullets, knife blades, or the force of blunt objects. Its purpose is to prohibit Congress – the Government – from infringing on “the right to keep and bear arms.” Those arms are for the purpose of ensuring a “free state,” wherein we the people live freely without fear of the government or other bullies threatening our inalienable rights.
In the same way, the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee that anyone else will receive your speech. It does, however prohibit limits on your speech by Congress, as long as you don’t harm someone else.
None of our inalienable rights trump the inalienable rights of others. No one may freely use their gun to infringe on the life, liberty or property of another person — it’s only to be used in defense of rights. The same thing goes for the right to free speech and press. If your expression causes harm to another person who is not threatening you or anyone else, then you should be liable, whether you are guilty of yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater, or of publishing names and addresses of law abiding people who are minding their own business.
Unfortunately, members of the Press don’t understand the harm their speech can cause others:
The Monday article in The Journal News was headlined “The gun owner next door: What you don’t know about the weapons in your neighborhood,” and was in response to the Dec. 14 school shooting in Newtown, Conn.
“Do you fools realize that you also made a map for criminals to use to find homes to rob that have no guns in them to protect themselves? What a bunch of liberal boobs you all are,” wrote one reader.
The sentiments were echoed by another, who wrote, “How dare you guys. You have just destroyed the privacy of these law-abiding citizens and by releasing this list, you have equated them to that of sex offenders and murders. These are law-abiding gun owners, they are no danger to anyone except for criminals. And with this information you have made them targets for both criminals and anti-gun lobbyist who I am sure are going to treat them like monsters. I hope you are sued for infringing on the privacy rights of every single one of these citizens you have just put in harm’s way.”
One reader, in an attempt to “turn the tables on the Journal and see how they like it,” posted the home addresses of the newspaper’s president, top editors, and the reporter who wrote the story.
The gun registration information, which is available to the public, was obtained by The Journal News through a through a Freedom of Information Act request.
On Tuesday, in an article written by Journal News Reporter Randi Weiner, the paper defended its decision to post the addresses of handgun permit holders across Westchester, Rockland, and Putnam Counties, the northern suburbs of New York City where the paper is read.
“We knew publication of the database would be controversial, but we felt sharing as much information as we could about gun ownership in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings,” Weiner quoted CynDee Royle, editor and vice president of the newspaper. “People are concerned about who owns guns and how many of them there are in their neighborhoods.”
Royle said that a freedom of information request seeking the specifics on how many and what types of weapons were owned by people in the above mentioned counties was denied.
via NY Newspaper Draws Flak for Map of Gun Owners.
Note: I’ve added the links to the NewsMax article, which didn’t have what I consider important information. A thank you “Hat Tip” to the blog, “For What It’s Worth,” for one of the links and for being resourceful!
Sinking Economy? Obama says sink it faster
Hitting the debt ceiling, borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, and about to go over the “fiscal cliff” if a compromise isn’t worked out. The Obama strategy is to spend more, borrow more and pretty much sabotage the “bipartisan” deal.
How grand is that?
And who does the New York Times blame?
via Republicans Balk at Obama’s Short-Term Stimulus – NYTimes.com.
The Obama administration is arguing that the sluggish economy requires a shot in the arm, and it included tens of billions of dollars of little-noticed stimulus measures in its much-noticed proposal to Congressional leaders last week. But Republicans have countered that the country cannot afford to widen the deficit further, and have balked at including the measures in any eventual deal.
Blame it on Grover (the memo must have gone out)
If you believe that the multiple headlines focusing on Grover Norquist are a coincidence, I’ve got ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.
Benghazi, bimbos, and the Petraeus spin
All women are potential bimbos, all media reports are reliable, and email is a secure way to threaten your romantic rivals, right? In the case of Paula Broadwell, the story doesn’t make sense. Next, we’ll hear comments from James Carville (or David Axelrod) about trailer parks and $100 bill.
Or, are we all being treated to the latest version of “bimbo eruptions,” the false trashing of women by the Clinton Administration of the 1990’s? If you remember that far back, every single woman who claimed that Bill Clinton had abused her was painted by the Clinton Administration and subsequently by the media as liars who were women scorned, jealous and mentally unstable.
We’ve been told that former Army General David Petraeus resigned as Director of the CIA because he had been having an affair. His alleged mistress, Paula Broadwell, a married mother of two, was an honor graduate from West Point, retired from the Army after attaining the rank of Major and recognition as a military expert. and a former intelligence officer. She was a Lt. Colonel in the Army Reserves and a member of the FBI anti-terrorism force. We are to believe that at 40 years old, this highly accomplished woman went around the bend, and became jealous of another woman, a friend of the Petraeus family, and the FBI discovered that she had been sending “anonymous” emails to the other woman.
(At 19 minutes into the speech, Broadwell mentions that General Petraeus was undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer when they met. This makes me even more doubtful about the affair story.)
It turns out that Ms. Broadwell may have come under heightened scrutiny after she spoke to the alumni association at the University of Denver (where she had studied in October. During the question and answer period, she made the very controversial claim that the annex at Benghazi, where our Ambassador was killed on September 11, 2012, was being used to hold captured Libyan militia prisoners, and that’s why the US forces were attacked.
The video was posted online, although it’s been removed by the University from many others, including Front Page News, At least as of 5 PM on Monday, November 12th, the video is available on YouTube, here,
and at Human Events, that I found after a Google search on the title of the video, “Alumni Symposium 2012, Paula Broadwell.” If the videos all disappear, here’s a quote about Benghazi , at least:
“The challenge has been the fog of war, and the greater challenge is that it’s political hunting season, and so this whole thing has been turned into a very political sort of arena, if you will,” she said. “The fact that came out today is that the ground forces there at the CIA annex, which is different from the consulate, were requesting reinforcements.
“They were requesting the – it’s called the C-in-C’s In Extremis Force – a group of Delta Force operators, our very, most talented guys we have in the military. They could have come and reinforced the consulate and the CIA annex.
“Now, I don’t know if a lot of you have heard this but the CIA annex had actually taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner, and they think that the attack on the consulate was an attempt to get these prisoners back. It’s still being vetted.
via Petraeus’ Mistress Claims Benghazi Annex had Libyan Islamist Prisoners.
Benghazi emails not front page news on Google? (Updated 2 PM)
This is the front page of Google News — There’s no mention of the news about real-time emails and White House knowledge of the ongoing attack! I had to search “Benghazi emails” specifically to find coverage of the story.
Reuter’s and Yahoo each have a story about Secretary of State Clinton’s comments on the “Facebook” claim by a militant group – but no front page coverage of the real-time emails from the State Department in Libya about the attack in Benghazi.
Update, 2 PM CDT: Google News now has the story, 3rd or 4th on the page. However, the coverage still focuses on when the White House knew about the claim of responsibility. I’m glad that interest has forced the upgrade in coverage. However, I don’t believe that what they knew about the source of the attack should be the focus. Forbes has it right, with their article about the inadequate response to the attack.
U. of Texas backs professor in battle with gay blogger
WingRight reported on the harassment of Mark Regnerus, a University of Texas at Austin Professor of Sociology, for his study on the differences in the adult children of homosexual parents. Dr. Regnerus was subjected to an investigation by the University, which confiscated his computer and emails.
The University has exonerated the Professor, and released this statement on September 12, 2012:
“The University of Texas at Austin has determined that no formal investigation is warranted into the allegations of scientific misconduct lodged against associate professor Mark Regnerus regarding his July article in the journal Social Science Research,” the school said in a statement. “As with much university research, Regnerus’ New Family Structures Study touches on a controversial and highly personal issue that is currently being debated by society at large.”The university expects the scholarly community will continue to evaluate and report on the findings of the Regnerus article and supports such discussion,” the statement concluded.
via U. of Texas backs professor in battle with gay blogger | Fox News.
Gambling costs aren’t worth the revenues (& @JoePags is wrong)
@joepags “Joe Pags” on WOAI radio hung up on me – again – last night. It’s so frustrating to have the phone sudenly go silent – and, since I’ve turned off the radio while on the phone, I can’t hear Joe’s next comments.
This time, the topic was yesterday’s news about a push for legalized casino gambling in Texas and why Mr. Pagliarulo should be able to gamble legally in Texas, rather than take his money to Oklahoma, Louisiana, or Las Vegas. I’ll give discuss the evidence and give references to studies showing the adverse effects of gambling later on, but first, let’s examine Joe’s poor arguments in favor of gambling.
Joe complained about our State property taxes, as one of the highest in the Nation. Yes, we are ranked in the top 10, for property taxes. However, Texas’ State sales tax is moderate and we have no income tax, making our overall tax burden number 45 in the Country.
He accused the first caller of “judging” him, because the man said that he believes that gambling is immoral. No, the man was judging the morality of gambling, never brought up the morality of people who disagree with him.
Besides, aren’t all laws based on morality?
Joe argues that “liberty” demands that those of us who object to gambling should allow gambling by those who don’t. He even told one caller that if he doesn’t like gambling, just don’t go to the casino. (Sounds like one of the shaky arguments in favor of abortion or same sex marriage, doesn’t it?) However, Joe is advocating a change in Texas’ State law. Those of us who vote are responsible for the consequences of our votes and for the laws our Legislators make, therefore we are complicit with what we consider immoral, whether we partake or not. Joe is still at liberty to go to a State where gambling is legal. To force us to be complicit with his gambling is “license,” not liberty.
Joe claims that everyone who objects to casino gambling should be carrying signs and protesting the Lottery and racetrack gambling in Austin. Joe may not realize that many of us objected to both of the above before they were legalized – and we were right in that they certainly haven’t solved the State’s revenue problems. Nevertheless, the fact that the rest of us have other priorities (like my own work for traditional medical ethics and pro-life laws), doesn’t mean that we are willing to sit still while the law is changed, yet again.
And then, Joe argues that the fact that Louisiana and other States continue to allow legalized gambling must prove that the benefits of gambling outweigh the costs to those States. That argument hasn’t proven to be true. At best, gambling is a (mostly) voluntary way of redistributing wealth. In fact, this report claims that States only benefit when people from outside come in, leave their money and then go home, and reports that the National Gambling Impact Study Commission goes so far as to report that the evidence that gambling benefits outweigh the costs is “poorly developed and quite incomplete.”
The economic benefits of gambling are often at the expense of other sections of the economy and are short term. In fact, analyses indicate that lotteries and horse racing may actually increase State revenues, casinos and grey hound racing do not. At least one statistical study finds no “relationship between real casino revenues and real per capita income at the state level.”
The societal or socio-economic costs of legalized gambling have been compared to those of drug abuse and include the social ills that accompany addictive behavior:
- “increased criminal justice system impacts
- “health-care related to the treatment of problem gambling
- “costs borne by individual problem gamblers and their families
- “displacement effects in retail, entertainment and food service sectors”
According to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, the economics of legalized gambling aren’t a good bet for Texas:
Costs associated with gambling include: (1) a reduction of approximately 10 percent in state lottery revenues; (2) an investment of approximately 10 percent of revenues in regulatory costs for gambling; (3) criminal justice costs underwriting an 8 to 13 percent increase in crime; (4) lost state and local revenue resulting from diversion of spending from goods and services to gambling; and (5) lost jobs resulting from decreased spending on non-gambling goods and services.
****
The financial costs of gambling are evident in experiences of communities and states:
• 24 out of 57 counties in the U.S. with casinos experienced job losses
• Atlantic City went from 50th in the nation for per-capita crime to first and violent crimes
rose by 78 percent, during the first three years of casino gambling
• Sales declined 10 to 20 percent in Natchez, Mississippi after gambling was legalized
• Counties with casinos have a bankruptcy filing rate that is 13.6 percent higher than in counties without casinos throughout the nation
• Delaware reports spending between $1 to $1.5 million annually on gambling-related costs and Wisconsin reports spending $63 million annually
The proponents of gambling ignore the costs and emphasize the benefits of tax revenues from gambling.
Bibliography
“Economic Development and Casinos. Do Casinos Cause Economic Growth?” Douglas M. Walker, John D. Jackson. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 66, No. 3 (July, 2007). http://walkerd.people.cofc.edu/pubs/AJES-growth.pdf (accessed 10/10/12)
“Gambling Economics: Summary Facts” Earl L. Grinols. April 2011 http://www.freedomfoundationofminnesota.com/Websites/freedomfoundation/Images/Gambling%20Economics-%20Summary%20Facts%20by%20Professor%20Earl%20Grinols,%204.29.11.pdf (accessed 10/10/12)
“Is Gambling a Good Economic Development Bet?” Local Government Matters, Volume 4, Issue 13 Excerpt from Economic Development: Strategies for State and Local Practice, 2nd Edition. Steven G. Koven and Thomas S. Lyons. ICMA Press, August, 2010. http://icma.org/en/icma/newsroom/highlights/Article/100498/Is_Gambling_a_Good_Economic_Development_Bet (accessed 10/10/12)
“Overview of the Economic and Social Impacts of Gambling in the United States” Douglas M. Walker. College of Charleston, November 2011 http://walkerd.people.cofc.edu/pubs/2012/OxfordCh_dist.pdf (accessed 10/10/12)
“Social and Economic Costs and Benefits of Gambling” Rhys Stevens. Alberta Gaming Research Institute http://www.abgamblinginstitute.ualberta.ca/en/LibraryResources/Bibliographies/SocialandEconomicCostsandBenef.aspx (accessed 10/10/12)
“Social and Economic Costs of Gambling” John R. Hill, Ph.D. Alabama Policy Institute http://www.alabamapolicy.org/issues/gti/issue.php?issueID=189&guideMainID=9 (accessed 10/10/12)
“Social costs of gambling nearly half that of drug abuse, new book concludes” Mark Reutter. Inside Illinois Archives, News Bureau, Public Affairs, University of Illinois. March, 2004. http://news.illinois.edu/news/04/0308grinols.html (accessed 10/10/12)
“The Costs and Consequences of Gambling In the State of Delaware” State of Delaware, Health and Social Services, Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health October, 2002. http://www.udel.edu/healthserpolresgrp/gamrpt02.pdf
“Triumph, Tragedy or Trade-Off? Considering the Impact of Gambling” Jason J. Azmier, Robin Kelley, Peter Todosichuk. August 2001. Canada West Foundation, Canada. https://dspace.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/1880/48165/1/200108.pdf (accessed 10/10/12)
“VLTs — What Are The Odds Of Texas Winning?” Chris Patterson Texas Public Policy Foundation http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2005-03-vlt.pdf (accessed 10/10/12)
Prepared by Health Services Policy Research Group, School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware. October, 2002. http://www.udel.edu/healthserpolresgrp/gamrpt02.pdf (accessed 10/10/12)
What Chick-Fil-a’s Dan Cathy Actually Said @FRCdc @BaptistPress #tcot
“Hate speech,” right? Only if you advocate for divorce and serial monogamy — or practice media abuse.
I’m ashamed to say that I didn’t look up Mr. Cathy’s actual remarks until I read a quote in a story about the shooting of a guard at the Washington, DC Headquarters of the Family Research Council.
I went searching for the original interview and found it, here:
“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
A person has to try very hard to find hate in that comment or the others recorded in the piece about a radio interview that Mr. Cathy gave to the Biblical Recorder’s K. Allan Blume, and later published in the Baptist Press. In my opinion, your world view – or your agenda – must be pretty narrow to turn Mr. Cathy’s comments about the family and marriage into “anti” anything!
Here’s the part of the story that supposedly was “anti-gay:”
The company invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation (WinShape.com). The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners.
It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center modeled after the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove.
“That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries,” Cathy added.
Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position.
“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
“We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized.
“We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”
As a “first wife,” I’m probably biased, but I like that he thanks the Lord for his marriage! And I don’t see any mention of gays, at all!
Texas Medical Association wants you to pay for elective abortions @texmed @texasallianceforlife #pro-life #tcot
Not all of the members of Texas Medical Association agree with the TMA on this.
The San Antonio Express News published an editorial August 9th, by O. Ricardo Pimentel, entitled, “Texas tries to get between you, your doctor:”
For them, the issue isn’t abortion; it’s about the doctor-patient relationship, patient health and the ability to put everything on the table that needs to be discussed. Even if it’s abortion.
In a recent letter to the state, the Texas Medical Association, joined by other medical groups, said Texas is about to embark on a plan for providing medical care to low-income women that will impose a “gag order” on discussing abortion even on doctors working with patients not in the program.
Other groups, weighing in during the public comment period on proposed state rules, have similar concerns.
It’s a plan, they say, that will ensure not enough doctors for this program willing to provide care, including family planning services. And this, they say, will guarantee more unintended pregnancies, more abortions and more illness that might have been prevented for low-income women.
Among those also commenting on the rules were the Center for Public Policy Priorities, and leaders of Planned Parenthood entities in the state, South Texas groups among them.
Trust me, for everyone who is mentioned above, it’s about abortion. The law doesn’t stop anyone from discussing or even promoting true contraception that doesn’t end the life of our youngest children of tomorrow.
And it is about “elective abortions:” those that are performed on health babies in healthy mothers. We’re not talking about the more controversial abortions in cases of rape and incest, much less in the cases of congenital disorders that are “not compatible with life outside the womb and certainly not in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. Since when do elective abortions “need to be discussed?”
How difficult is it to understand that Texas taxpayers should not pay for “promotion” of abortion? Or that we most certainly do not want our State tax funds to go to doctors who perform elective abortions on healthy babies and healthy mothers?
While I don’t speak for the Society, I am an elected delegate for my County Medical Society to the TMA House of Delegates and I believe that most of our members would agree with me on this. I am very much in favor of restricting payment from our limited State funds to only those doctors and organizations that provide comprehensive and continuing medical care for the whole woman and her whole family. With Texas Family Doctors, Internal Medicine Docs, Pediatricians and OB/Gyns reeling from the lack of increasing fees from Medicare and decreases in Medicaid funding, why not help keep them in business by adding the availability of billing the State for screening tests like pap smears, exams for breast masses, diabetes and high blood pressure?
In fact, that’s what the Legislature decided: that money would be prioritized. First come the comprehensive care docs, hospitals, and county and city clinics. Planned Parenthood is never mentioned, although there is a section of the law that absolutely prohibits the State from contracting with anyone who “promotes” abortion *if there are other qualified providers available.*
Texas DHS has already identified more than enough doctors and clinics that qualify under the law. These doctors can actually treat the diseases for which the Texas Women’s Health Plan screens. Our Texas Legislature made a wise decision when they agreed that it doesn’t make sense to send our few dollars to a clinic that treats a very narrow medical spectrum in an intermittent manner.
And the law has already saved human lives: Austin city and Travis County taxes once paid for 400 elective abortions each year. A year ago, the law achieved what the taxpayers who protested this use of their money couldn’t do: Austin and Travis County health clinics were forced to stop funding those abortions.
If you have a family doctor, consider a polite call to his or her front desk asking them to let the TMA know their views on using Texas’ tax funds to support Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.
You might also consider contacting Texas Alliance for Life and/or you local Crisis Pregnancy Center to let them know that you support their efforts to keep your State (and federal) tax funds from paying for the ending of lives of our Texans of tomorrow.
Rush Rules, Again! @MittRomney #taxes #tcot
From Rush’s transcript, August 2, 2012,
RUSH: Now, ladies and gentlemen, Mitt Romney is no tax cheat. But even if he was, so what? The Treasury secretary of the United States is an admitted tax cheat, and the Democrats didn’t give a damn about that. Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats in the Senate voted to confirm Little Timmy Geithner, the tax cheat. Joe Biden is a plagiarist. Anybody care about that? Barack Obama fudged laws in a shady deal to buy his house with the help of a conflicted felon. His good pal Bill Ayers bombed the Pentagon. Romney is none of this. Not even close to it. We have an admitted tax cheat that is the Treasury secretary of the United States, Timothy Geithner. Democrats don’t care about it.
Family Doctor or Family Nurse? Pay now or Pay Later?
We docs often hear that advance practice nurses could do 80% of what Family docs, pediatricians and internist do. But, it’s knowing the difference between that 80% and 20% that will kill you!
I’m printing the whole of this letter from Dr. Valenti published by the Texas Medical Association, because it says so much that we doctors are saying these days. Here’s more about the crisis among Texas Doctors who still see the poorest elderly in Texas.
Money is vital to keep practices open, but what’s scary is that there’s a move to allow “mid-levels” to do more. Specifically, Dr. Valenti objects to an opinion piece in the DMN that includes this statement: “Hardly anyone doubts that most veteran registered nurses, with a little more training, could do a fine job setting broken bones, stitching wounds and even dispensing drugs for common ailments.”
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Setting the Record Straight on Doctor Pay
The following is a response by Joseph Valenti, MD, to commentary published Friday in the Dallas Morning News by Eli Lehrer, president of R Street. In the article, Mr. Lehrer claims U.S. physicians and health care workers make too much money and are responsible for the high cost of medical care in America.Dear Sir:
I am a physician in Denton, Texas. This morning, I sat and read your article in The Dallas Morning News titled “Your Doctor’s Big Fat Paycheck.” Frankly, I am in awe of the breadth of your ignorance.
Fact: Of the health care dollars spent in this country, physician salaries make up about 8.5 percent. That is one of the lowest percentages in the industrialized world. Germany, by contrast, is at 15 percent.
Fact: The graduate level course of study for nurse practitioners (NPs) and nurses is not even close to that of physicians — we have a little something called residency. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. When I did mine in OB-Gyn from 1994 to1998, it was 90-100 hours a week for four years with a take home pay of $20,000. I was raising a family on that, as my wife had to stay home to take care of premature twins. NPs and nurses do none of that.
Fact: Private insurers are already too strong. “Weak bargaining position”? If you don’t like the contract they offer, they tell you to take a hike. Doctors are the ones with no bargaining position. I haven’t had an increase from United Healthcare for 54 months. Meanwhile, it paid its shareholders an 11-percent dividend last year. And regarding your comment about how individual plans rarely cover one-half an area — do your homework! States like Alabama have Blue Cross and Blue Shield covering 90 percent of insured lives! In any other industry, this would constitute a monopoly.
Fact: Medicare increases have been had by every segment of the health care industry except doctors. (See the charts.)
Fact: Pilots may make less than doctors. They also belong to unions and walk out when they don’t get what they want. Doctors never walk out, and the pro bono and free care we hand out can’t even be deducted from our federal taxes as charity. Then try breaking it down per hour. Pilots fly about 60 hours/month. Doctors work in the office and hospital about 60 hours/week. And that doesn’t take into account nights and weekends on call. Don’t get me wrong — pilots are vital and do a great job. But on a per-hour basis, they are clearly ahead. By the way, I don’t know a single primary care doctor who makes $200,000 a year. Most of the ones I know are barely getting by, and many are closing their practices or selling them to hospitals.
A huge doctor shortage is looming. We cannot and will not attract our best and brightest students to medicine unless their pay is commensurate with the level and intensity of work and commitment needed to fund a modern medical education. The student loan burden alone, which is now often exceeding $200,000, keeps many away.
The huge amount we spend in this country for health care has far less to do with medical professionals’ salaries than it does with the cost of almost everything else. Case in point: The same Mirena IUD, from the same single factory that Bayer uses in Finland, costs $700 in the United States but costs $250 in Canada. Really? That same case can be made for tens of thousands of drugs and medical products here.
Medicine is one of the only businesses I know of where the increasing cost of doing business can’t be passed on to the customer. Every year, the cost of running my office and paying my employees goes up, while insurance payments stay the same or go down. I am left to eat the difference. My salary the last three years is less than I made 14 years ago when I started in private practice. Hardly a source of bankrupting the health care system.
Shakespeare said that the eye sees what the mind knows. With that in mind, ask yourself if you would feel comfortable entrusting your care or that of your family to someone with less training, less knowledge, and less expertise. Would you? I think not. Now ask yourself how happy one of us would be treating someone like you, who wrote an article that is so misleading about us and who we really are and what we really have done to become really good at taking care of patients. Surprise. We would love to take of you. Why? Because that is what we took a vow to do, a vow that doesn’t allow us the luxury of being judgmental. So the next time you are lying in bed needing emergency surgery, remember this — we will be there. Pay or no pay. Assign a value to that ideal, and then consider whether or not we are “overpaid.”
Sincerely,
Joseph S. Valenti, MD, FACOG
First Amendment on Life Support
“More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man’s religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property.” John Madison, “Property,” National Gazette, March 29, 1792.
“In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.” Hippocratic Oath, approximately 400 BC.
“Refusals based on moral disapprobation, however, are not typical of medical ethics” R. Alta Charo, ”Health Care Provider Refusals to Treat, Prescribe, Refer or Inform: Professionalism and Conscience.” February, 2007.
Fully enjoying the protections of the First Amendment themselves, the New England Journal of Medicine has published yet another editorial, “Warning: Contraceptive Drugs May Cause Political Headaches,” by Robin Alta Charo, J.D., denouncing conscience and those of us who abide by ours. I suppose that she thought it was the right thing to do.
The Journal does not offer background on Ms. Charo’s previous editorials on the subject, including the notorious 2005 “The Celestial Fire of Conscience.” The editors don’t include any note – any “warning’ – that she was part of the political Obama transition team. Ms. Charo did not mention any of these possible conflicts of interest in her “disclosure form,” available online.
Charo’s entire argument relies on readers’ agreement that the argument is about “public policy and contraception.” It is vital to her argument since, as she quotes Georgetown University theologian Tom Reese, “If the argument is over religious liberty, the bishops win.” Because, if we understand that the issue relates to “an establishment of religion,” Congress cannot legitimately pass, and the Executive Branch may not enforce, any law that infringes on the free exercise of religion.
Charo would instead have us focus on “public institutions, public places, and public duties.” Although hospitals and universities serve the public by providing healthcare and education, they are still owned by private, religious entities. In addition, the Obama Administration’s “accommodation” – the suggestion that the institution’s insurance company provide contraception free of charge to the ensured who want it – becomes much more complicated in light of the fact that most large religious hospitals and universities privately self-insure rather than enter into the market to buy first dollar coverage from a third party insurance company.
Charo’s essay is political appeal to emotion and half-truths, full of the “partisan sound bites and slogans” she denounces. However, not even the lie about mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds compares with her earlier error of logic in warning that the institutions could withhold “ordinary salary.” I don’t know of any religious organization that considers agreed-upon salary for agreed-upon service as inherently sinful. Keeping a promise, like that in the First Amendment or a contract with an employee is sacred to those of us with a conscience.
The Constitution demands that Congress “shall make no law” limiting religious freedom. The attempt by the Obama Administration to write regulations that require religious institutions to engage in acts that are contrary to long-standing, organized tenets of that religion goes directly against the First Amendment and cannot be justified.
The Big Lie, Buffett Version
No matter how often it’s repeated, it’s a lie that the
Buffett rule will cut deficit or increase the money available for
Washington, DC to spend. The highest I’ve seen is $47 Billion dollars
over 10 years in revenue from the Buffett tax increase. That’s less
than one day of current *deficit* Federal spending.
The entire premise is a lie. The capital gains taxes are taxed at the
corporate rate prior to bring dispersed to investors. And they’ve
already been taxed as income from the investors.
Taxes are punishment for achievement and investment. The Buffett rule
– while sparing Buffett’s own tax shelters, the foundations run by his
kids – is a disincentive for investors and punishment for the risk
required to achieve.
For more information – proof of the Big Lie – on the rates and the amounts that “the rich” pay in taxes, take a look at what the Congressional Budget Office says about taxes and income levels:
- “The overall federal tax system is progressive—that is, average tax rates generally rise with income. Households in the bottom quintile (fifth) of the income distribution paid 4 percent of their income in federal taxes, while the middle quintile paid 14 percent, and the highest quintile paid 25 percent. Average rates continued to rise within the top quintile, with the top 1 percent facing an average rate of close to 30 percent.
- “Higher-income groups earn a disproportionate share of pretax income and pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes. In 2007, the highest quintile earned 56 percent of pretax income and paid 69 percent of federal taxes, while the top 1 percent of households earned 19 percent of income and paid 28 percent of taxes. In all other quintiles, the share of federal taxes was less than the income share. The bottom quintile earned 4 percent of income and paid less than 1 percent of taxes, while the middle quintile earned 13 percent of income and paid 9 percent of taxes.”
Click here to get your “Choose Life” license plate
Rick Perry RickPAC
Yes, I'm still for Governor Perry!
RickPAC
SiteMeter
WingRight 