Message To Congress --
• The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - you have had 234 years to get it right; it is broke.
• Social Security was established in 1935 - you have had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.
• Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - you have had 71 years to get it right; it is broke.
• The "War on Poverty" started in 1964 - you have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; it hasn't worked and our entire country is broke.
• Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - you've had 44 years to get it right; they are broke.
• Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - you have had 39 years to get it right; it is broke.
• Trillions of dollars were spent in the massive political payoffs called TARP, the "Stimulus", the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009... none show any signs of working, although ACORN appears to have found a new pimp: the American taxpayer.
• And finally, to set a new record: "Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke as soon as it lauched! It took good dependable cars (that were the best some people could afford) and replaced them with high-priced and less-affordable cars, mostly Japanese. A good percentage of the profits went out of the country. And the American taxpayers take the hit for Congress' generosity in burning three billion more of our dollars on failed experiments.
• So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that "services" you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system?
One-sixth of our entire national economy?
With all due respect, are you crazy? Or do you think the American people are?
To stop government-run healthcare, go to: www.HandsOffMyHealthcare.com
Friday, October 30, 2009
Texas is on top, according to Trend Magazine
Texas is on top: thanks to leadership.
America's Future: California vs. Texas is a head-to-head, state battle we are winning and winning big. In an article, published in the October 2009 issue of Trends Magazine, Texas gets many kudos. It’s not without good leadership that we are in the enviable position of the top state in the country to do business, the top exporting state, the number one state for business relocation, and the fastest-growing state.
It doesn’t happen by accident. While we fiscal conservatives often get frustrated trying to get fiscally responsible legislation passed, we need to pat ourselves on the back – Texas isn’t California and we are in much better shape than the country is in. We need to take a minute and thank our leadership for their good work.
Here is Trend Magazine’s take on it:
What’s the worst state to do business in? According to readers of Chief Executive, it’s California. In the same poll, Texas won first place as the best state in which to put your headquarters.
As reported in The Economist, the two largest states in the nation have very different philosophies and very different success rates.
In the 1950s and ‘60s, California was the embodiment of the American Dream, offering great schools, roads, jobs, and communities with all the latest amenities, not to mention good weather, beaches, and quick access to the mountains and wilderness for recreation. As home to Disneyland and the movie industry, the state represented all that was glamorous and new.
Cut to the present day. California is $26 billion in the hole and has recently been paying its bills with IOUs. Its once-proud schools are suffering, and the prison system is releasing criminals early because the state can’t afford to keep them. Social services are being cut right and left. Infrastructure is aging and falling apart. Unemployment is nearing 12 percent. State employees are forced to take unpaid furlough days, and many California cities are worse off than Detroit. Its state income tax is the second highest in the U.S., and government regulations seem perversely aligned to discourage people from doing business there.
In fact, people are fleeing the so-called Golden State at a rate of more than 100,000 a year. From the Great Depression on, California was a dream destination for Americans. Now it looks more like a nightmare, taking on new debt at a rate of $25 million a day.
Texas, on the other hand, was considered something of a backwater in the 1950s and ‘60s, and certainly not a glamorous destination for the upwardly mobile masses. How things change. Unemployment in that state is two percentage points below the national average. It has one of the lowest rates of repossession for housing. There is no state income tax, nor is there a tax on capital gains in Texas.
Also, the Lone Star State has more Fortune 500 headquarters than any other place in the union: California has 51, New York has 56, and Texas has 64.
Texas, on the other hand, was considered something of a backwater in the 1950s and ‘60s, and certainly not a glamorous destination for the upwardly mobile masses. How things change. Unemployment in that state is two percentage points below the national average. It has one of the lowest rates of repossession for housing. There is no state income tax, nor is there a tax on capital gains in Texas.
Also, the Lone Star State has more Fortune 500 headquarters than any other place in the union: California has 51, New York has 56, and Texas has 64.
http://www.trends-magazine.com/trend.php/Trend/2047/Category/55
Gov. Rick Perry and the Texas leaders should be commended for helping keep Texas on top.
America's Future: California vs. Texas is a head-to-head, state battle we are winning and winning big. In an article, published in the October 2009 issue of Trends Magazine, Texas gets many kudos. It’s not without good leadership that we are in the enviable position of the top state in the country to do business, the top exporting state, the number one state for business relocation, and the fastest-growing state.
It doesn’t happen by accident. While we fiscal conservatives often get frustrated trying to get fiscally responsible legislation passed, we need to pat ourselves on the back – Texas isn’t California and we are in much better shape than the country is in. We need to take a minute and thank our leadership for their good work.
Here is Trend Magazine’s take on it:
What’s the worst state to do business in? According to readers of Chief Executive, it’s California. In the same poll, Texas won first place as the best state in which to put your headquarters.
As reported in The Economist, the two largest states in the nation have very different philosophies and very different success rates.
In the 1950s and ‘60s, California was the embodiment of the American Dream, offering great schools, roads, jobs, and communities with all the latest amenities, not to mention good weather, beaches, and quick access to the mountains and wilderness for recreation. As home to Disneyland and the movie industry, the state represented all that was glamorous and new.
Cut to the present day. California is $26 billion in the hole and has recently been paying its bills with IOUs. Its once-proud schools are suffering, and the prison system is releasing criminals early because the state can’t afford to keep them. Social services are being cut right and left. Infrastructure is aging and falling apart. Unemployment is nearing 12 percent. State employees are forced to take unpaid furlough days, and many California cities are worse off than Detroit. Its state income tax is the second highest in the U.S., and government regulations seem perversely aligned to discourage people from doing business there.
In fact, people are fleeing the so-called Golden State at a rate of more than 100,000 a year. From the Great Depression on, California was a dream destination for Americans. Now it looks more like a nightmare, taking on new debt at a rate of $25 million a day.
Texas, on the other hand, was considered something of a backwater in the 1950s and ‘60s, and certainly not a glamorous destination for the upwardly mobile masses. How things change. Unemployment in that state is two percentage points below the national average. It has one of the lowest rates of repossession for housing. There is no state income tax, nor is there a tax on capital gains in Texas.
Also, the Lone Star State has more Fortune 500 headquarters than any other place in the union: California has 51, New York has 56, and Texas has 64.
Texas, on the other hand, was considered something of a backwater in the 1950s and ‘60s, and certainly not a glamorous destination for the upwardly mobile masses. How things change. Unemployment in that state is two percentage points below the national average. It has one of the lowest rates of repossession for housing. There is no state income tax, nor is there a tax on capital gains in Texas.
Also, the Lone Star State has more Fortune 500 headquarters than any other place in the union: California has 51, New York has 56, and Texas has 64.
http://www.trends-magazine.com/trend.php/Trend/2047/Category/55
Gov. Rick Perry and the Texas leaders should be commended for helping keep Texas on top.
Rendezvous with Destiny
I had the privilege of working for President Ronald Reagan and worked in his presidential campaign. I was't there when 45 Years Ago Today, he made the great "We Have a Rendezvous With Destiny" speech.
We forget this anniversary at our peril.
As conservatives face off against their own natural party, the GOP, in NY-23, Florida, and elsewhere, we should remember Ronald Reagan's famous speech, "A Time To Choose."
"Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.
And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.
This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down-[up] man's old-old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism...
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments' programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth...
"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.
"We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."
They have the whole speech and audio at RedState.
Please check here for the rest of their post: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/10/27/45-years-ago-today-we-have-a-rendezvous-with-destiny/
But I think the upcoming health care votes in Congress and the big-government agenda being pushed by Washington presents us with another crossroad. Will we put 1/6th of our U.S. economy under the federal government? I hope the answer is "no". - Peggy Venable
We forget this anniversary at our peril.
As conservatives face off against their own natural party, the GOP, in NY-23, Florida, and elsewhere, we should remember Ronald Reagan's famous speech, "A Time To Choose."
"Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.
And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.
This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down-[up] man's old-old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism...
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments' programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth...
"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.
"We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."
They have the whole speech and audio at RedState.
Please check here for the rest of their post: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/10/27/45-years-ago-today-we-have-a-rendezvous-with-destiny/
But I think the upcoming health care votes in Congress and the big-government agenda being pushed by Washington presents us with another crossroad. Will we put 1/6th of our U.S. economy under the federal government? I hope the answer is "no". - Peggy Venable
The TRUE Cost of ObamaCare
If you are like me, wondering how the folks in Washington can claim that they will achieve “health care reform” while not increasing the deficit, welcome to my world.
That’s right, there is no free lunch. The costs will be dear – not only in monetary costs, but in costs to our freedom.
No Free Lunch: The True Cost of ObamaCare is a great piece by Matt Patterson at
The National Center for Policy Analysis.
Below is an overview, and to read the entire article go to: http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/press/no-free-lunch-the-true-cost-of-obamacare
________________________________________
Far from providing "affordable" care for everyone, as President Obama has promised,1 the main health care proposals working their way through Congress would in fact come at a painful price - higher insurance premiums, more and higher taxes, fewer jobs, lower wages, a reduced standard of living and an erosion of privacy and individual liberty.
Here's what ObamaCare would cost you, and how:
Higher Insurance Premiums
Government meddling in the health insurance market leads to higher premiums.
Bottom line: Billions in new taxes and fees on insurers and health-care companies8 would be necessary to pay for ObamaCare - costs that would then be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher premiums.
Higher Taxes
When government promises to subsidize and expand health coverage, more and higher taxes are sure to follow.
Bottom line: Government cannot provide free or subsidized care for someone without taking money from someone else - and that someone else may be you.
Lower Wages/Fewer Jobs
ObamaCare would lead to reduced wages and further depress the job market, hitting low-skilled and low-income workers hardest.
Bottom line: Government cannot provide free or subsidized care for someone without taking money from someone else - and that someone else may be you.
Standard of Living
The massive government spending required to finance national health care would significantly expand the federal deficit17 with ruinous consequences for every American's standard of living.
Bottom line: ObamaCare would means huge deficits, and deficits soak up money from the economy that would otherwise be used for the savings and investment needed for economic growth.
Medicare Benefits
ObamaCare would pay for itself, in part, with hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare and Medicare Advantage.
Bottom line: ObamaCare means less Medicare - a lot less.
Privacy
ObamaCare would erode your privacy by expanding the IRS and mandating that insurers, employers and government agencies share with one another your personal financial information.
Bottom line: ObamaCare regulations would result in a larger, more powerful IRS, and ensure that more of your personal information is shared with more people.
Your Freedom
ObamaCare would enlarge the state at the expense of your freedom.
Bottom line: This "individual mandate" would constitute a gross abuse of governmental power and a violation of every American's right to decide what is best for themselves and his or her family.
ObamaCare won't save us money, nationally or individually. Instead, it will increase insurance premiums, raise taxes, depress wages, siphon jobs, explode the deficit, reduce our living standards, rob us of privacy and erode our personal liberty.
BOTTOM LINE: That's the kind of "free" care we just can't afford.
To sign up for Hands Off My Health Care, go to: www.HandsOffMyHealthCare.com
That’s right, there is no free lunch. The costs will be dear – not only in monetary costs, but in costs to our freedom.
No Free Lunch: The True Cost of ObamaCare is a great piece by Matt Patterson at
The National Center for Policy Analysis.
Below is an overview, and to read the entire article go to: http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/press/no-free-lunch-the-true-cost-of-obamacare
________________________________________
Far from providing "affordable" care for everyone, as President Obama has promised,1 the main health care proposals working their way through Congress would in fact come at a painful price - higher insurance premiums, more and higher taxes, fewer jobs, lower wages, a reduced standard of living and an erosion of privacy and individual liberty.
Here's what ObamaCare would cost you, and how:
Higher Insurance Premiums
Government meddling in the health insurance market leads to higher premiums.
Bottom line: Billions in new taxes and fees on insurers and health-care companies8 would be necessary to pay for ObamaCare - costs that would then be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher premiums.
Higher Taxes
When government promises to subsidize and expand health coverage, more and higher taxes are sure to follow.
Bottom line: Government cannot provide free or subsidized care for someone without taking money from someone else - and that someone else may be you.
Lower Wages/Fewer Jobs
ObamaCare would lead to reduced wages and further depress the job market, hitting low-skilled and low-income workers hardest.
Bottom line: Government cannot provide free or subsidized care for someone without taking money from someone else - and that someone else may be you.
Standard of Living
The massive government spending required to finance national health care would significantly expand the federal deficit17 with ruinous consequences for every American's standard of living.
Bottom line: ObamaCare would means huge deficits, and deficits soak up money from the economy that would otherwise be used for the savings and investment needed for economic growth.
Medicare Benefits
ObamaCare would pay for itself, in part, with hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare and Medicare Advantage.
Bottom line: ObamaCare means less Medicare - a lot less.
Privacy
ObamaCare would erode your privacy by expanding the IRS and mandating that insurers, employers and government agencies share with one another your personal financial information.
Bottom line: ObamaCare regulations would result in a larger, more powerful IRS, and ensure that more of your personal information is shared with more people.
Your Freedom
ObamaCare would enlarge the state at the expense of your freedom.
Bottom line: This "individual mandate" would constitute a gross abuse of governmental power and a violation of every American's right to decide what is best for themselves and his or her family.
ObamaCare won't save us money, nationally or individually. Instead, it will increase insurance premiums, raise taxes, depress wages, siphon jobs, explode the deficit, reduce our living standards, rob us of privacy and erode our personal liberty.
BOTTOM LINE: That's the kind of "free" care we just can't afford.
To sign up for Hands Off My Health Care, go to: www.HandsOffMyHealthCare.com
Thursday, October 29, 2009
HISD battle cry: CHARGE IT!!!
Houston Independent School District doled out 1,200 credit cards; some staffers issued cards have bad credit and bankruptcies
Some HISD staffers who have been handed credit cards owe money to schools.
This story comes to us from the investigative reporters at Texas Watchdog:
http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2009/10/houston-independent-school-district-issues-credit-cards-to-employees-with-bankruptcies/
A similar story was reported by AFP two years ago when we found out that Dallas ISD didnot maintain information on their credit card charges, and were charging atround $3 million a month. Three DISD officials were indicted.
Your tax dollars at work; your education dollars aren't getting to the classroom.
Some HISD staffers who have been handed credit cards owe money to schools.
This story comes to us from the investigative reporters at Texas Watchdog:
http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2009/10/houston-independent-school-district-issues-credit-cards-to-employees-with-bankruptcies/
A similar story was reported by AFP two years ago when we found out that Dallas ISD didnot maintain information on their credit card charges, and were charging atround $3 million a month. Three DISD officials were indicted.
Your tax dollars at work; your education dollars aren't getting to the classroom.
The 1,100-Page Health Care Bill is Online
Thanks to everyone who has demanded that the bill be posted online, Congress has decided to post at least one of their ObamaCare bills online.
Read it and be afraid... Be very afraid...
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
Read it and be afraid... Be very afraid...
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
Health Care Corruption
As Sen. Harry Reid pushes singly-payer (government-run) health care, it’s hard to know where he is today. He has found a way, however, to provide his home state with a tax break. So while all of us in the country will be paying higher taxes under ObamaCare, Harry Reid has exempted what state? That’s right, his home state of Nevada. And what about New York? Yep, Sen. Chuck Schumer has managed to get his state exempt from the taxes. That information, and more, was shared with the standing-room only crowd at the Hands Off My Healthcare townhall meeting this morning in Texarkana.
Let’s not forget that union members won’t pay the insurance tax being proposed for everyone else…you and me. Guess Democrats, who count on union support, anticipate since they can’t pass card check legislation, they will increase union membership by providing this tax exemption.
Frankly, the corruption around the proposed government-run health care plans is massive.
Let’s not forget that union members won’t pay the insurance tax being proposed for everyone else…you and me. Guess Democrats, who count on union support, anticipate since they can’t pass card check legislation, they will increase union membership by providing this tax exemption.
Frankly, the corruption around the proposed government-run health care plans is massive.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
AFP President Tim Phillips in WSJ
In response to: Cap and Trade Could Be a Boon to New York by Senator Gillibrand.
Hasn't the country learned its lesson that creating fanciful financial instruments, like derivatives, and allowing Wall Street to bandy them about institutionalizes instability? Carbon derivatives would be even worse than financial instruments that gave us the housing bubble. Cap and trade seeks to create a commodity out of thin air. The government would create a value where none exists. At least the mortgage securities had an actual asset behind them.
Tim Phillips
President
Americans for Prosperity
Arlington, Va.
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
Hasn't the country learned its lesson that creating fanciful financial instruments, like derivatives, and allowing Wall Street to bandy them about institutionalizes instability? Carbon derivatives would be even worse than financial instruments that gave us the housing bubble. Cap and trade seeks to create a commodity out of thin air. The government would create a value where none exists. At least the mortgage securities had an actual asset behind them.
Tim Phillips
President
Americans for Prosperity
Arlington, Va.
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html
Will Obama Sign away US Sovereignty?
This from the Washington Times today:
"Environmental alarmism is being exploited to chip away at national sovereignty. The latest threat to American liberties may be found in the innocuous sounding Copenhagen Climate Treaty, which will be discussed at the United Nations climate-change conference in mid-December.
http://www.facebook.com/l/abb0e;www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/27/green-world-government/
The only hope is for the Administration to fail to get 2/3 of the U.S. Senate to go along with his scheme.
"Environmental alarmism is being exploited to chip away at national sovereignty. The latest threat to American liberties may be found in the innocuous sounding Copenhagen Climate Treaty, which will be discussed at the United Nations climate-change conference in mid-December.
http://www.facebook.com/l/abb0e;www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/27/green-world-government/
The only hope is for the Administration to fail to get 2/3 of the U.S. Senate to go along with his scheme.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Electricity deregulation is working for Texans
The Dallas Morning News recently said electricity deregulation didn't work. Not so, says former Texas Public Utility Commissioner and former FEC Commissioner Pat Wood:
The Dallas Morning News broadly criticized the Public Utility Commission on customer protection issues after running two articles on prepaid electric providers. It is only fair to put negative stories in the broader context of a well-monitored, competitive market that is working well.
It is incorrect to say that the competitive market has weakened the PUC's customer protections. In fact, in breaking open the retail power monopolies in 1999, the Legislature insisted on more protection of customers than we had under full regulation. As PUC chairman at the time, I worked with a broad collaborative group to set up the "rules of the road" before the market opened in 2002. And since then, the Legislature and the PUC have enhanced those protections.
In addition, today's open market provides Texans with rates lower than TXU's last regulated 9.7 cent per kilowatt-hour rate in 2001. On www.powertochoose.org, I see that Dallas customers can get flexible rates as low as 8.6 cents per kwh and fixed-term rates of 9 cents per kwh. If you aren't getting rates like that, shop around. And when you do, know that your customer protections are stronger than ever.
Pat Wood III, Houston
The Dallas Morning News broadly criticized the Public Utility Commission on customer protection issues after running two articles on prepaid electric providers. It is only fair to put negative stories in the broader context of a well-monitored, competitive market that is working well.
It is incorrect to say that the competitive market has weakened the PUC's customer protections. In fact, in breaking open the retail power monopolies in 1999, the Legislature insisted on more protection of customers than we had under full regulation. As PUC chairman at the time, I worked with a broad collaborative group to set up the "rules of the road" before the market opened in 2002. And since then, the Legislature and the PUC have enhanced those protections.
In addition, today's open market provides Texans with rates lower than TXU's last regulated 9.7 cent per kilowatt-hour rate in 2001. On www.powertochoose.org, I see that Dallas customers can get flexible rates as low as 8.6 cents per kwh and fixed-term rates of 9 cents per kwh. If you aren't getting rates like that, shop around. And when you do, know that your customer protections are stronger than ever.
Pat Wood III, Houston
Washington should listen to Texas leaders
Texas is the number one state for business relocation and has more Fortune 500 companies than any other state. Why - or better still, how?
Texas has an "open for business" sign out. Not so for policies coming out of Washington, D.C.
Tort reform is one thing which has helped Texas create more jobs and provide more certainty for businesses. But Washington has underestimated what tort reform could do for their socialized medicine plans.
Wall Street Journal - October 25, 2009
CBO UNDERESTIMATES BENEFITS OF MALPRACTICE REFORM
Earlier this month, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said medical-liability reforms could save about $11 billion annually. This assessment is a gross underestimate of the potential benefits of reform and was intended to give cover to congressional Democrats who say malpractice-liability costs are trifling. But a full accounting shows the benefits would be a hefty $242 billion a year, more than 10 percent of America's health expenditures. Last year alone, damage awards for medical-malpractice claims reached $5.9 billion. Adding in legal costs, underwriting costs, and administrative expenses, total med-mal tort costs were nearly three times higher — $16 billion. From 1986 through 2002, the average insurance payment for a malpractice claim more than tripled to $320,000. The average jury award for medical liability was $637,134 in 2006.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703573604574491690229571588.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Texas has an "open for business" sign out. Not so for policies coming out of Washington, D.C.
Tort reform is one thing which has helped Texas create more jobs and provide more certainty for businesses. But Washington has underestimated what tort reform could do for their socialized medicine plans.
Wall Street Journal - October 25, 2009
CBO UNDERESTIMATES BENEFITS OF MALPRACTICE REFORM
Earlier this month, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said medical-liability reforms could save about $11 billion annually. This assessment is a gross underestimate of the potential benefits of reform and was intended to give cover to congressional Democrats who say malpractice-liability costs are trifling. But a full accounting shows the benefits would be a hefty $242 billion a year, more than 10 percent of America's health expenditures. Last year alone, damage awards for medical-malpractice claims reached $5.9 billion. Adding in legal costs, underwriting costs, and administrative expenses, total med-mal tort costs were nearly three times higher — $16 billion. From 1986 through 2002, the average insurance payment for a malpractice claim more than tripled to $320,000. The average jury award for medical liability was $637,134 in 2006.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703573604574491690229571588.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Who did those bailouts bail out? Not the poor; not minorities
Who did those bailouts bail out?
Fannie and Freddie were bailed out last year, adding $5 trillion to our national debt, and put under government control. Now the news is it looks like FHA needs to be bailed out.
And, of course, low-income people who are the supposed beneficiaries of government compassion are the victims. Foreclosures in minority neighborhoods are reported to be seven times higher than the national average.
We can expect the same results from government taking over health care as we've gotten from housing socialism.
Thanks for that perspective, Star Parker:
http://townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2009/10/26/the_health_care_fatal_conceit
Fannie and Freddie were bailed out last year, adding $5 trillion to our national debt, and put under government control. Now the news is it looks like FHA needs to be bailed out.
And, of course, low-income people who are the supposed beneficiaries of government compassion are the victims. Foreclosures in minority neighborhoods are reported to be seven times higher than the national average.
We can expect the same results from government taking over health care as we've gotten from housing socialism.
Thanks for that perspective, Star Parker:
http://townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2009/10/26/the_health_care_fatal_conceit
Harry Reid gives us no options at all - that is just not acceptable
It has been posted on the Internet that Reid has saidHealth Care Bill will Include a Public Option.
Thats right -- Majority Leader Harry Reid says health care legislation headed to the Senate floor will include an option for government-run insurance. Reid noted that polls show widespread public support for giving the government a role in the overhauled health care system.
LOL - excuse me for laughing out loud. Reid thinks the public wants socialized medicane in the U.S? What has Harry been smoking?
First, Americans don't trust government to deliver our health care -- we don't trust government to do much of anything now.
Second, the government "option" won't be an option at all but would be a mandate -- first, get insurance or you will be fined; second, the government insurance WILL squeeze out private healthcare plans. So if you have insurance now and like it, say "bye bye" to your insurance. You WILL ultimately end on the government plan, you will be taxed more for it, our children will be bankrupt by it, and you will find your health care will be rationed.
That is the option Harry Reid wants to give us. No option at all...and that just isn't acceptable. Health care decisions are life and death - and we don't want government to be in charge of that! Say NO to the government putting a bureaucrat between you and your doctor - if you have not done so yet, sign the petition at www.HandsOffMyHealthCare.com
And mark your calendar for Nov 5 and make an "office visit" to your district congressional office and let them know you don't want a government take-over of our health care system.
Thats right -- Majority Leader Harry Reid says health care legislation headed to the Senate floor will include an option for government-run insurance. Reid noted that polls show widespread public support for giving the government a role in the overhauled health care system.
LOL - excuse me for laughing out loud. Reid thinks the public wants socialized medicane in the U.S? What has Harry been smoking?
First, Americans don't trust government to deliver our health care -- we don't trust government to do much of anything now.
Second, the government "option" won't be an option at all but would be a mandate -- first, get insurance or you will be fined; second, the government insurance WILL squeeze out private healthcare plans. So if you have insurance now and like it, say "bye bye" to your insurance. You WILL ultimately end on the government plan, you will be taxed more for it, our children will be bankrupt by it, and you will find your health care will be rationed.
That is the option Harry Reid wants to give us. No option at all...and that just isn't acceptable. Health care decisions are life and death - and we don't want government to be in charge of that! Say NO to the government putting a bureaucrat between you and your doctor - if you have not done so yet, sign the petition at www.HandsOffMyHealthCare.com
And mark your calendar for Nov 5 and make an "office visit" to your district congressional office and let them know you don't want a government take-over of our health care system.
Would a thank you note suffice?
McAllen Monitor - October 26, 2009 - MCALLEN SPENDS $15100 TO FETE “CHUY” HINOJOSA
The city spent $15,100 to throw a dinner party for state Sen. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, D-McAllen, Oct. 15, and city leaders defended the expense as a well-deserved thank you to the powerful senator, despite recent budgetary cutbacks. Hinojosa became vice chairman of the state Senate Committee on Finance this past legislative session, a powerful position in Austin in which he, in part, directs the flow of hundreds of millions of state dollars.
City leaders say Hinojosa was instrumental in several important projects for McAllen and the Rio Grande Valley at-large in the last session, which ended in June.
http://www.themonitor.com/articles/mcallen-31899-spends-chuy.html
Frankly, if Sen. Hinojosa has been representing his constituents well, isn't that in his job description? Thanking him with an extravagant taxpayer-funded dinner party is inappropriate while folks are losing their jobs. Get a grip, folks, it isn't rocket science. Elected officials should get a thank you when appropriate, and it need not be on engraved stationery.
The city spent $15,100 to throw a dinner party for state Sen. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, D-McAllen, Oct. 15, and city leaders defended the expense as a well-deserved thank you to the powerful senator, despite recent budgetary cutbacks. Hinojosa became vice chairman of the state Senate Committee on Finance this past legislative session, a powerful position in Austin in which he, in part, directs the flow of hundreds of millions of state dollars.
City leaders say Hinojosa was instrumental in several important projects for McAllen and the Rio Grande Valley at-large in the last session, which ended in June.
http://www.themonitor.com/articles/mcallen-31899-spends-chuy.html
Frankly, if Sen. Hinojosa has been representing his constituents well, isn't that in his job description? Thanking him with an extravagant taxpayer-funded dinner party is inappropriate while folks are losing their jobs. Get a grip, folks, it isn't rocket science. Elected officials should get a thank you when appropriate, and it need not be on engraved stationery.
Prop 4 won't improve college students' education
One of the loudest arguments we're hearing in favor of Proposition 4 is that if the state of Texas has more Tier One research universities, the quality of higher education will improve. Not so according to one highly reputable source – which reports that more money for research won’t give us better educational outcome for Texas college students:
http://blue-dot-blues.blogspot.com/2009/10/top-tier-one-universities-fail-core.html
A good reason to vote “no” on Prop 4.
http://blue-dot-blues.blogspot.com/2009/10/top-tier-one-universities-fail-core.html
A good reason to vote “no” on Prop 4.
Friday, October 23, 2009
ObamaCare explained
Let me get this straight.
...we're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee
with a chairman says he doesn't understand it,
passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves
from it,
to be signed by a president that also hasn't read it and who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his
taxes,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese,
and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
-- We could not have said it better ourselves
...we're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee
with a chairman says he doesn't understand it,
passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves
from it,
to be signed by a president that also hasn't read it and who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his
taxes,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese,
and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
-- We could not have said it better ourselves
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
ObamaCare: a hoax that won't fly
ObamaCare is as much a hoax as the little boy in the helium balloon in Colorado. Amreicans have been punked.
The health care bill, pushed by President Obama and the Democrats, would require everyone to buy health insurance or pay a fine for failing to do so.
People could keep their current insurance if their employer provided it and agreed to continue it. Insurance companies would be required to insure all applicants regardless of pre-existing conditions. People would be offered subsidies to buy insurance if their household incomes were below $70,000 a year and if their insurance cost more than 8% of their incomes ($5600 for a $70,000 a year family). The program will cost one trillion over ten years.
Those are the facts. But the Washington Post did a survey asking: "Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?" (poll data here; this is Q. 8: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_101909.html)
Framing the question that way is ridiculous! In reality, the so-called “public option” would not be good “competition” for existing insurance, as we have been saying all along, and would reduce – not increase – Americans’ options for health care. Poll after poll has shown that a strong majority of Americans oppose government-forced health care because they understand that a so-called “public option” is truly a government monopoly that will restrict choice and limit access to quality affordable care.
- Famed pollster Frank Luntz criticized the poll, noting that a majority of Americans and their elected leaders are opposed to a public option: “If 57% of Americans truly support it, why can’t 60% of the Democratic-controlled Senate agree to keep it in their bill? Make no mistake: if this poll were accurate, the public option would probably already be law. Instead, Congressional Democrats have run away from the public option because they know that the American people have rejected it—and will reject them at the polls for supporting it.”
- Another fun fact: The poll over samples Democrats by a 35% to 25% margin over Republicans, a 29% skew in favor of Democrats.
- Two recent polls have shown the majority of Americans against the
Washington takeover plans coming out of Congress. A Fox News poll showed 54% of Americans opposed (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,567908,00.html). A Rasmussen poll released yesterday (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform) also showed 54% opposed.
Make sure Congress doesn't think Americans have fallen for this hoax: sign here to tell Congress we don't want a national take-over of our health care system: http://www.joinpatientsfirst.com/?page_id=29
The health care bill, pushed by President Obama and the Democrats, would require everyone to buy health insurance or pay a fine for failing to do so.
People could keep their current insurance if their employer provided it and agreed to continue it. Insurance companies would be required to insure all applicants regardless of pre-existing conditions. People would be offered subsidies to buy insurance if their household incomes were below $70,000 a year and if their insurance cost more than 8% of their incomes ($5600 for a $70,000 a year family). The program will cost one trillion over ten years.
Those are the facts. But the Washington Post did a survey asking: "Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?" (poll data here; this is Q. 8: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_101909.html)
Framing the question that way is ridiculous! In reality, the so-called “public option” would not be good “competition” for existing insurance, as we have been saying all along, and would reduce – not increase – Americans’ options for health care. Poll after poll has shown that a strong majority of Americans oppose government-forced health care because they understand that a so-called “public option” is truly a government monopoly that will restrict choice and limit access to quality affordable care.
- Famed pollster Frank Luntz criticized the poll, noting that a majority of Americans and their elected leaders are opposed to a public option: “If 57% of Americans truly support it, why can’t 60% of the Democratic-controlled Senate agree to keep it in their bill? Make no mistake: if this poll were accurate, the public option would probably already be law. Instead, Congressional Democrats have run away from the public option because they know that the American people have rejected it—and will reject them at the polls for supporting it.”
- Another fun fact: The poll over samples Democrats by a 35% to 25% margin over Republicans, a 29% skew in favor of Democrats.
- Two recent polls have shown the majority of Americans against the
Washington takeover plans coming out of Congress. A Fox News poll showed 54% of Americans opposed (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,567908,00.html). A Rasmussen poll released yesterday (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform) also showed 54% opposed.
Make sure Congress doesn't think Americans have fallen for this hoax: sign here to tell Congress we don't want a national take-over of our health care system: http://www.joinpatientsfirst.com/?page_id=29
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Texas Conservative Coalition events
The Texas Conservative Coalition, a group of legislators, is holding a series of townhall meetings around the state to talk to you, the taxpayers. Please plan to attend and participate:
The meeting schedule for October and November follows:
· Saturday, October 24: Three meetings with Rep. Randy Weber:
· 10am - BAY CITY -- Bay City Service Center Auditorium, 2105 Avenue M, Bay City, Texas
· 2pm - ALVIN/MANVEL -- Manvel High School Cafeteria, 19601 Hwy 6 @ McCoy Road, Manvel, Texas
· 4pm - PEARLAND -- Nolan Ryan Jr High Cafeteria (West Side of Pearland), 11500 Shadow Creek Pkwy (FM 22234) @ Kirby, Pearland, Texas
· Tuesday, November 3 - 6:00pm in Athens, with Rep. Betty Brown in the Trinity Valley Community College Cafeteria: 100 Cardinal Drive, Athens
· Wednesday, November 4 - 7:30am in Forney, with Rep. Betty Brown in Covenant Generations Church in Forney (10342 W. Highway 80).
· Monday, November 9 – 7:00pm in Katy with Reps Bill Callegari and John Zerwas at the Powerhouse Christian Center, 1818 Katyland Drive, Katy, Texas 77493.
· Thursday, November 12 – 6:30pm in Richardson with Reps Angie Chen Button and Jerry Madden at the Richardson Civic Center: 411 W. Arapaho Road.
· Tuesday, November 17 – 6:30pm in Plano with Reps Jodie Laubenberg and Ken Paxton at Collin College, Spring Creek Campus Conference Center (Section C): 2800 E. Spring Creek Parkway
The meeting schedule for October and November follows:
· Saturday, October 24: Three meetings with Rep. Randy Weber:
· 10am - BAY CITY -- Bay City Service Center Auditorium, 2105 Avenue M, Bay City, Texas
· 2pm - ALVIN/MANVEL -- Manvel High School Cafeteria, 19601 Hwy 6 @ McCoy Road, Manvel, Texas
· 4pm - PEARLAND -- Nolan Ryan Jr High Cafeteria (West Side of Pearland), 11500 Shadow Creek Pkwy (FM 22234) @ Kirby, Pearland, Texas
· Tuesday, November 3 - 6:00pm in Athens, with Rep. Betty Brown in the Trinity Valley Community College Cafeteria: 100 Cardinal Drive, Athens
· Wednesday, November 4 - 7:30am in Forney, with Rep. Betty Brown in Covenant Generations Church in Forney (10342 W. Highway 80).
· Monday, November 9 – 7:00pm in Katy with Reps Bill Callegari and John Zerwas at the Powerhouse Christian Center, 1818 Katyland Drive, Katy, Texas 77493.
· Thursday, November 12 – 6:30pm in Richardson with Reps Angie Chen Button and Jerry Madden at the Richardson Civic Center: 411 W. Arapaho Road.
· Tuesday, November 17 – 6:30pm in Plano with Reps Jodie Laubenberg and Ken Paxton at Collin College, Spring Creek Campus Conference Center (Section C): 2800 E. Spring Creek Parkway
Monday, October 19, 2009
Carbon Con Game is a Con Job on Americans
The Carbon Con Game
by Peter Huber, Forbes Magazine
Since nobody can track twigs and cowpats, China's carbon accountants can make its renewable numbers come out anywhere they like. China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gas on the planet. We burn more carbon per person, but China has more people, and both its population and economy are growing much faster than ours. For many members of Congress, a vote for strict carbon limits will be politically suicidal if constituents continue to believe--correctly--that the vote will propel a massive shift of jobs, wealth and emissions from Peoria to Beijing.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1102/opinions-china-carbon-greenhouse-gas-insights.html
by Peter Huber, Forbes Magazine
Since nobody can track twigs and cowpats, China's carbon accountants can make its renewable numbers come out anywhere they like. China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gas on the planet. We burn more carbon per person, but China has more people, and both its population and economy are growing much faster than ours. For many members of Congress, a vote for strict carbon limits will be politically suicidal if constituents continue to believe--correctly--that the vote will propel a massive shift of jobs, wealth and emissions from Peoria to Beijing.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1102/opinions-china-carbon-greenhouse-gas-insights.html
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Inaccurate Info goes Viral, would cost you money
Some folks don’t want you, the taxpayer, to get property tax relief. So they are circulating misinformation – downright lies – about the constitutional amendments on the November ballot which would help you save money – and maybe even your home.
For instance, currently, local government appraisers can set the value of your homestead on what is called “highest and best use”. That means if you live in an area where a retail establishment would generate more income to the local government, your home could be taxed at that higher value. The legislature worked to fix that, and now all we need to do is pass the constitutional amendment to allow for that “fix”.
It’s Proposition 2 on the Nov 3 ballot. A vote for this proposition would be a taxpayer protection vote.
But some emails are circulating around the Internet claiming that the taxpayer protections would result in a state-wide property tax. Not so!
The Texas Constitution states:
Sec. 1-e. ABOLITION OF AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES. No State ad valorem taxes shall be levied upon any property within this State.
This can be found in Article 8: Taxation and Revenue, Section 1-e: abolition of ad valorem property taxes.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/
Don’t believe all you read on the Internet (unless it comes from us :o) and always check the source.
We propose voting FOR Props 2, 3 & 5 as taxpayer protections.
For instance, currently, local government appraisers can set the value of your homestead on what is called “highest and best use”. That means if you live in an area where a retail establishment would generate more income to the local government, your home could be taxed at that higher value. The legislature worked to fix that, and now all we need to do is pass the constitutional amendment to allow for that “fix”.
It’s Proposition 2 on the Nov 3 ballot. A vote for this proposition would be a taxpayer protection vote.
But some emails are circulating around the Internet claiming that the taxpayer protections would result in a state-wide property tax. Not so!
The Texas Constitution states:
Sec. 1-e. ABOLITION OF AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES. No State ad valorem taxes shall be levied upon any property within this State.
This can be found in Article 8: Taxation and Revenue, Section 1-e: abolition of ad valorem property taxes.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/
Don’t believe all you read on the Internet (unless it comes from us :o) and always check the source.
We propose voting FOR Props 2, 3 & 5 as taxpayer protections.
CBO Director: There are Costs Involved with Cap and Trade
Waxman-Markey proposes a new national tax of historic proportions.
Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf testified on October 14 before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to discuss the economic effects of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the effects – most notably the effects of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade legislation. Although Elmendorf felt that Waxman-Markey could greatly reduce the long-term risks of climate change, he acknowledged that “such legislation would also reduce economic activity through a number of different channels.”
Note: Director Elmendorf’s expertise is budgets and economics, not climate science.
Read more from Heritage Foundation here:
http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=63a24a3d128b92071f2d7ecc24fe6177&CID=5000351783&ch=4EF53A2654D5EB66CC782E4A95EC214C
Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf testified on October 14 before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to discuss the economic effects of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the effects – most notably the effects of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade legislation. Although Elmendorf felt that Waxman-Markey could greatly reduce the long-term risks of climate change, he acknowledged that “such legislation would also reduce economic activity through a number of different channels.”
Note: Director Elmendorf’s expertise is budgets and economics, not climate science.
Read more from Heritage Foundation here:
http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=63a24a3d128b92071f2d7ecc24fe6177&CID=5000351783&ch=4EF53A2654D5EB66CC782E4A95EC214C
Monday, October 12, 2009
Regulation the Internet added to Obama Agenda
In a free-market economy, "providing investment" is not the government's role - and if these new rules are too broadly construed, they could dry up tens of billions in annual private investment in broadband infrastructure.
What's more, they could needlessly restrict Internet service providers' ability to manage the traffic on their networks. As anyone who watches their TV ads knows, broadband providers have to offer their customers services valuable enough to justify the subscription fees that pay for their multibillion-dollar upgrades.
Advocates of network-neutrality regulations are generally unconcerned that they will result in a collapse of private investment in Internet infrastructure, because they regard private investment - perhaps even the private economy as a whole - as an unnecessary impediment to their vision of government.
Read Phil Kerpen’s piece in the Washington Times: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/11/big-government-obama/
What's more, they could needlessly restrict Internet service providers' ability to manage the traffic on their networks. As anyone who watches their TV ads knows, broadband providers have to offer their customers services valuable enough to justify the subscription fees that pay for their multibillion-dollar upgrades.
Advocates of network-neutrality regulations are generally unconcerned that they will result in a collapse of private investment in Internet infrastructure, because they regard private investment - perhaps even the private economy as a whole - as an unnecessary impediment to their vision of government.
Read Phil Kerpen’s piece in the Washington Times: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/11/big-government-obama/
Friday, October 9, 2009
Brazil gets $2B from US Taxpayers, and the Olympics
Who said Liberals were environmentalists? Who said they didn't want off shore drilling?
Brazil got the Olympics and $2 billion taxpayer dollars, the latter thanks to President Obama.
On a segment of the "Glenn Beck Show" on Fox on August 20, 2009, was the following:
"Today even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for oil for this country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to Petrobas, a Brazilian oil exploration company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil. The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole use of China and not the USA. The Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels. We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever.
Wait, it gets more interesting. Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian oil company and who would benefit most from this? It is American billionaire George Soros, the Liberal businessman who is a radical left wing supporter, finances MoveOn.org as well as other liberal programs, and was Prez Obama's largest and most generous supporter during his campaign.
If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as pissed off as I am. Not a word of this transaction was on any of the other news networks.
Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. I do not think this was the type of "change" that Obama advertised as he campaigned, but this does resemble classic dirty Chicago politics. Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this. I wonder just what President Obama is getting out of this ..... ?
After all, Liberals generally oppose offshore drilling "for the environment". Guess that the environment doesn't matter if Soros is the one benefitting. Capitalism - they do love it - IF it benefits the Radical Left Wing Financiers.
Brazil got the Olympics and $2 billion taxpayer dollars, the latter thanks to President Obama.
On a segment of the "Glenn Beck Show" on Fox on August 20, 2009, was the following:
"Today even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for oil for this country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to Petrobas, a Brazilian oil exploration company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil. The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole use of China and not the USA. The Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels. We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever.
Wait, it gets more interesting. Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian oil company and who would benefit most from this? It is American billionaire George Soros, the Liberal businessman who is a radical left wing supporter, finances MoveOn.org as well as other liberal programs, and was Prez Obama's largest and most generous supporter during his campaign.
If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as pissed off as I am. Not a word of this transaction was on any of the other news networks.
Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. I do not think this was the type of "change" that Obama advertised as he campaigned, but this does resemble classic dirty Chicago politics. Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this. I wonder just what President Obama is getting out of this ..... ?
After all, Liberals generally oppose offshore drilling "for the environment". Guess that the environment doesn't matter if Soros is the one benefitting. Capitalism - they do love it - IF it benefits the Radical Left Wing Financiers.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Not Un-American to Want to Protect Taxpayers
Peggy Venable, AFP Foundation Texas director, made the following statement in response to criticisms of speakers at AFP Foundation’s recent Defending the American Dream Summit:
Some taxpayers expressed relief that the U.S. taxpayer would not end up footing the bill for the Olympics in Chicago in 2016. Many Chicago residents agree. While we as an organization do not have a position on the Olympic location, we feel this is not the time to incur these extraordinary costs and likely debt which usually accompanies Olympic events.
Background:
According to the Chicago Tribune newspaper, the Olympics costs would have been in excess of $2.1 billion, though most of these events far exceed the original cost estimates. A HuffingtonPost.com article said it would be as much as $3.3 billion and “Olympic games are notorious for busting their budgets. The 2012 Olympics in London will cost an estimated $16.5 billion, three times its original estimate.” To think the Chicago Olympics would have been 1/5th that cost is naive at best, and probably downright ridiculous.
The Chicago 2016 bid committee had said much of the cost would be picked up by federal taxpayers, not local ones. But in the end, Chicago citizens would be on the hook for any huge cost overruns.
Many in Chicago were also cheering that the City didn’t get the Olympics. They weren’t un-American, but were concerned about their city’s priorities and the debt they would incur with the Olympics in their City. They had written President Obama asking him not to go to Copenhagen to personally plea for the Olympic bid:
“This summer has not been easy for many people who reside in Chicago. As the city entered into the final leg of competition for the 2016 Summer Olympics, Chicago citizens witnessed cuts in services, and city employees were forced to take furlough days to balance the budget. At the same time, many state programs and jobs were slashed.
“While funds were nowhere to be found for basic services, the Chicago 2016 Olympic bid committee, the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois lined up nearly $2 billion in taxpayer funds for the 2016 Olympics….
“As a longtime resident of Chicago, you are well aware that in this city, cost overruns and delays of large civic construction projects go hand in hand.
“Millennium Park came in four years behind schedule and three times over budget…
“Stay home and represent the will of Chicagoans who are tired of the corruption that plagues politics in this city, tired of watching their tax dollars funneled elsewhere while their neighborhoods crumble, and tired of being lied to and ignored by elected officials.
The people of Chicago who packed Grant Park on Election Night to listen to your victory speech joined you in hopes of change. Change in Chicago would mean a direct investment in hospitals, housing, schools, trains and other services that would improve the quality of life in our city.
Chicago's Olympic bid isn't a promise of change--it's just more politics as usual.”
Read that full letter here: http://gapersblock.com/mechanics/2009/09/28/an-open-letter-to-barack-obama-for-the-good-of-chicago-dont-go-to-copenhagen/
On Friday, Oct 2, in Copenhagen, the OIC members voted from contenders Chicago, Tokyo, Rio and Madrid. Chicago did not make it to round two of the voting. AFP Foundation’s annual Defending the Dream Summit was held in the D.C. area and in one of the breakout sessions; a panelist read from an email sent to their Blackberry that the Olympics had gone to Rio de Janeiro. Critics claimed these citizens were “un-American” to express relief that the Olympics would not be held in the U.S.
Some taxpayers expressed relief that the U.S. taxpayer would not end up footing the bill for the Olympics in Chicago in 2016. Many Chicago residents agree. While we as an organization do not have a position on the Olympic location, we feel this is not the time to incur these extraordinary costs and likely debt which usually accompanies Olympic events.
Background:
According to the Chicago Tribune newspaper, the Olympics costs would have been in excess of $2.1 billion, though most of these events far exceed the original cost estimates. A HuffingtonPost.com article said it would be as much as $3.3 billion and “Olympic games are notorious for busting their budgets. The 2012 Olympics in London will cost an estimated $16.5 billion, three times its original estimate.” To think the Chicago Olympics would have been 1/5th that cost is naive at best, and probably downright ridiculous.
The Chicago 2016 bid committee had said much of the cost would be picked up by federal taxpayers, not local ones. But in the end, Chicago citizens would be on the hook for any huge cost overruns.
Many in Chicago were also cheering that the City didn’t get the Olympics. They weren’t un-American, but were concerned about their city’s priorities and the debt they would incur with the Olympics in their City. They had written President Obama asking him not to go to Copenhagen to personally plea for the Olympic bid:
“This summer has not been easy for many people who reside in Chicago. As the city entered into the final leg of competition for the 2016 Summer Olympics, Chicago citizens witnessed cuts in services, and city employees were forced to take furlough days to balance the budget. At the same time, many state programs and jobs were slashed.
“While funds were nowhere to be found for basic services, the Chicago 2016 Olympic bid committee, the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois lined up nearly $2 billion in taxpayer funds for the 2016 Olympics….
“As a longtime resident of Chicago, you are well aware that in this city, cost overruns and delays of large civic construction projects go hand in hand.
“Millennium Park came in four years behind schedule and three times over budget…
“Stay home and represent the will of Chicagoans who are tired of the corruption that plagues politics in this city, tired of watching their tax dollars funneled elsewhere while their neighborhoods crumble, and tired of being lied to and ignored by elected officials.
The people of Chicago who packed Grant Park on Election Night to listen to your victory speech joined you in hopes of change. Change in Chicago would mean a direct investment in hospitals, housing, schools, trains and other services that would improve the quality of life in our city.
Chicago's Olympic bid isn't a promise of change--it's just more politics as usual.”
Read that full letter here: http://gapersblock.com/mechanics/2009/09/28/an-open-letter-to-barack-obama-for-the-good-of-chicago-dont-go-to-copenhagen/
On Friday, Oct 2, in Copenhagen, the OIC members voted from contenders Chicago, Tokyo, Rio and Madrid. Chicago did not make it to round two of the voting. AFP Foundation’s annual Defending the Dream Summit was held in the D.C. area and in one of the breakout sessions; a panelist read from an email sent to their Blackberry that the Olympics had gone to Rio de Janeiro. Critics claimed these citizens were “un-American” to express relief that the Olympics would not be held in the U.S.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)