Cigarette Taxes...

The state raised cigarette taxes to $1.77 per pack and promptly budgeted/spent all the new money that would bring in.  The only problem is that this 230% increase in the tax rate only generated a 48% increase in the tax money received!  Now, we're stuck with a lot of people circumventing the tax entirely by buying cigarettes out-of-state or over the Internet.  And, we have added to an already staggering budget shortfall.

Makes a lot sense, huh?

~~~~~

Clean Air Act Gone Wild...

One of my favorite agencies, the EPA, has decided that it now has free rein over so-called greenhouse gases.  This came to pass as the result of a 'namby-pamby' U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that didn't go quite far enough to ward off this rampant agency.  EPA has now released its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule-making, an ANPR in the jargon, and this is astonishing.  EPA would regulate airplanes, trains, ships, boats, tractors, farm and mining equipment, lawn mowers, garden equipment, portable power generators, fork lift trucks, construction equipment and logging equipment.

EPA estimates that more than 500,000 new permits will be required.  Among the supposed new requirements are these:

• Lawn mower standards:  "...each application could require a different unit of measure tied to the machine's mission or output-such as grams per kilogram of cuttings from a 'standard' lawn for lawn mowers."
• Truck speed standards:  "Speed limiters are generally available on new trucks or as a low cost retro-fit..."
• Single family homes become polluters:  "...we believe that small commercial establishments...and indeed, a large single-family residence could exceed this [CO2 pollution] threshold."

All of this means that our taxes go up exponentially since the EPA will be forced to grow staff and facilities to handle this new found mission.  And, it means that we'll all pay more for products and services.

And, none of this was ever the intent of Congress nor has it had the opportunity to inject itself to this point.

~~~~~

Compact Fluorescent Bulbs...

Regular, nice old incandescent light bulbs (starting with 100 watt bulbs) become illegal to manufacture in 2012.  The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) points out that this means we can forget about spending 20 cents or so for the old bulb while buying the new CFLs for something on the order of $3.00+ (remember that these are usually subsidized today).

While CFLs save energy, they have costs associated with them that make all this really questionable:

• The average lifetime is not 10,000 hours, but "up to 10,000 hours"
• The energy savings and lifetime of CFLs has been exaggerated in some applications
• The CFL only achieves the claimed efficiency if burned continuously for long periods
• If left on for only 5 minute periods, the CFL will burn out just as fast as an incandescent bulb
• CFLs dim over their lifetime and do not deliver what is promised

And, we're adding mercury to the environment which supposedly will be handled by proper disposal.  Yeah, sure!  How many of us has disposed of a burned out CFL improperly already?  How is that ever going to be policed?

~~~~~

Clean Water Restoration Act...

The EPA is back again.  The original Clean Water Act of 1972 had gotten to be very broadly interpreted under various EPA rulings.  "Navigable waters" had morphed into isolated wetlands, dry lake beds and drainage ditches, for example.  Now, two Democrat members of Congress have introduced the bill named in the title.  It would replace the phrase "navigable waters" with the phrase "waters of the United States"  This means "all waters subject to ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds and all impoundments of the foregoing".  Reason magazine, August/September 2008

If this bill were to pass in its current state, it would very likely result in massive new regulations for boaters, fishermen, hunters, and even conservationists.  This act would leave it to the courts to decide what constitutes "waters of the United States".

Thanks to Ronald Bailey for writing the article "Feds in a Fishbowl" in Reason.

~~~~~

Anti-Meat Campaign...

Finally, from the Heartland Institute, this on global warming activists' latest efforts.  They are launching new efforts to restrict meat production and consumption, building on prior efforts to restrict various agriculture activities that supposedly would reduce 'greenhouse gases'.

More on this can be found on the worldchanging.org website.

If we continue to have a ban on drilling more oil, we won't be able to buy meat anyway, so maybe this isn't as bad as I first thought.

Maybe we really do have too many crackpots in Congress...or too many people are being paid through campaign contributions and don't have the commonsense necessary to sort out the good from the crazy.

Oregon has had government involved in health care for quite a few years.  The state electorate also approved the concept of state sanctioned suicide several years ago.

Recently, the board that reviews the medications that are approved for state residents made a determination that was controversial...in my mind if no where else.  The board, in essence, said that, given the cost of a certain medication, it would approve suicide for this patient but would not approve use of the medicine given its relative newness and the lack of convincing data as to the outcome.  It had essentially set a price on the human life involved.

Today I read the story concerning Denver Children's Hospital and heart transplants in infants that use the heart from another infant that died a 'cardiac-related death'.  This differs from a heart harvested from a brain-dead infant in which that heart is beating until removed from the donor body.  A decision has been made that the donor that has been pronounced dead and has been in that state for only 75 seconds, is a valid heart donor for purposes of this new program.  The earlier line that had existed required death be determined only after some five minutes during which time the heart did not re-start itself.  In this instance, the length of time a person had been deemed 'dead' had been reduced to assure that the harvested heart had a decent chance of functioning in the new body.  The three cases in which this approach has been employed resulted in three infants alive today.  The decisions to withdraw life support were made by the parents in all three instances.

We know so much more today than we did a decade ago.  We can do things from a medical perspective that were impossible then, and these procedures have become commonplace now.  We are, in this area, pushing the envelope as it has never before been pushed.

I know there are at least two sides to these issues.  I have good friends whose daughter lives today because of transplanted organs that were available on a timely basis.  I can't even begin to comprehend being placed in the middle of such decisions, and I earnestly hope that never befalls me.

And this leads to my general question:  Is there a line we dare not cross?  If so, where is or was that line?  Am I comfortable with an appointed board making life and death decisions about me?  Who among us can claim the right to make such a decision?  How do medical ethicists deal with these kinds of issues?

I don't profess to have the answers to these questions.  If you do, and you're willing to share, I'd appreciate your comments.

As we watch the Summer Olympics, we see the pageantry and the heroics of the athletes from around the world. 

We don't see the oppression that has persisted for centuries in China and that continues to persist under the very noses of those who are walking the streets of Beijing.

TV cameras and microphones have been installed in all the taxi cabs and are remote controlled by the authorities to be sure that no one says or does something threatening to the regime.  130,000 police and soldiers are present ostensibly to protect the attendees.  They also help assure that the opposition will be suppressed during the games.

300,000 Chinese citizens augment the 130,000 people mentioned above as additional eyes and ears.  Reporters are subject to censorship.  Passports are summarily pulled from some reporters who have sought to broadcast by telephone back to their home countries.  That is a subtle form of reminder that the regime is in complete control and that one shouldn't forget it.

Against this backdrop, the President stood aligned with Chinese protestants this morning to deliver a few words of support.  We don't know what kind of persecution will follow when the reporters and TV crews leave, but we can remember the Tienanmen Square episode of a few years ago and draw upon those scenes of brutality to get some idea.

China is China.  Nothing more and nothing less.  It owns a big chunk of America.  It spies on us every day.  It works to find weaponry that can be used against us.  It still wishes to defeat us; if not on an actual battlefield, then in commerce.  We seem to forget these things, but they are critical.

If you were prescient and stocked up on the Forever Stamp while it was still available at $0.41, you may be able to say "Gotcha!"

A small news item caught my eye this morning.  The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) posted a loss of $1,100,000,000 for the quarter ended June 30th.  Yes, that is $1.1 Billion that was lost by the USPS, now a private organization.

The reasons cited were reduced mail volume (blamed on the slowing economy) and rapidly rising transport costs.

We can all understand that the cost of fuels that go into delivery have gone through the roof.  Everything delivered costs more, or soon will.  And, the economy has slowed.  Given the apparent political stalemate on drilling for oil here and now, fuel costs will likely do nothing but continue to increase.  Your Forever Stamps may prove to have been a really good investment since postage costs will almost certainly have to rise for us consumers.

I wonder, however, if there may be something more at work here.  Is it possible that we are watching the initial death throes of snail mail as we have known it for our lifetimes?  We know that more of us are computer literate today than ten years ago.  I think we would agree that use of computers and other communications devices will continue to accelerate.

Between telephones and other electronic communication media, and with delivery services available that have already taken most of the parcel post market, are we in the process of ending the use of delivered items that we walk to a mailbox to retrieve?  Simply look at the state of newspapers in our country today to get some idea of the potential impact.

Will there continue to be a USPS ten years from now?   Twenty?

If so, what will it look like and what will it do?  What will happen to all the brick and mortar that carries the USPS logo?  What happens to the tens of thousands of employees?

Could this really happen?   Did anyone ever ask that about horses and buggies?  Did anyone ever foresee air travel in the 1850s?  Did anyone ever foresee space travel in the 1930s?

A new approach to how auto insurance would be priced is beginning to catch hold and could spread quickly if it proves to be something people like.

The concept is called "pay as you drive" and it factors miles driven and driving behavior into premium rate development.  So far, Progressive, an auto insurer whose ads you've probably seen on television, has begun to sell this product in Alabama (in July) and will launch the product in New Jersey next week.

California officials are apparently considering legislation that would allow the concept to be marketed there.  The California Assembly passed the bill (A.B. 2800) by a vote of 72-2, so it was popular on that side of their legislature.

Here's how it works:

Policyholders receive a small wireless device that ties into the vehicle's computer diagnostic system.  The device gathers data from various functions on-board the vehicle.  This data reports how much the vehicle is being driven, when the vehicle is being driven, the number of miles driven and mileage by time of day, the speed per second and all sudden acceleration, deceleration and braking.

The data is transmitted automatically to Progressive, and policyholders can check their data on-line.

The whole point apparently is to cause those who drive more to pay more while those who drove less would pay less.  A recent study from the Brookings Institution found that today, drivers similar in age, gender, location and driving record pay nearly the same rates.  If all drivers were to pay per mile, driving would decline by 8% nationwide thus saving $50 to $60 billion per year from reduced congestion and fewer accidents.  It would also supposedly reduce carbon emissions by 2% and oil consumption by 4%.  (By the way, in the first five months of 2008, miles driven by drivers in the U.S. have dropped 2.4% or nearly 30 billion miles given the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel.)

Progressive is also introducing this program in Minnesota and Oregon.  If the program appears popular in Minnesota, I'll wager that it won't be long before it is is being touted in Wisconsin.

Not stated in the study, but inherent in the supposition, is anything concerning the premium rate impact.  It stands to reason that the safer driver would be charged less for his or her premium.  This will strike some as a way to single out a group for higher rates.  If that group is incurring the bigger costs, would that be all bad?

Beyond all this is the privacy invasion issue that will certainly be part of the debate and acceptance patterns.

Back on July 21st, I Blogged about the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" that would compel radio stations to mount the same number of hours daily for 'liberal' talkers as they do for 'conservative' talkers.  This would, in the minds of the liberals in Congress, equalize the message of the two differing points of view. 

On the heels of that, we saw the 'celebration' of Rush Limbaugh's twentieth anniversary as a conservative 'talker' this past Friday.  There is not, to my knowledge, a liberal radio personality anywhere with anything near the run that Limbaugh has had and will continue to have according to the new $38 million contract signed that takes his nationally-syndicated program into 2016.

This drives the liberals nuts but it has nothing to do with 'unfairness', and everything to do with the difference in messages.  We Americans, thankfully, are able to listen to anything we prefer.  If we preferred the Air America message, it wouldn't be struggling and on its third owner in nearly the same number of years.  We prefer the conservative message.  Liberals fight battles using class warfare actually pitting one group against another group to create animosity that the left believes will result in votes for its candidates.

If you follow any of the national debates, you'll see this clearly.  Conservatives understand the free market forces and seek more oil being drilled recognizing that this will drive prices down.  Liberals still cannot tolerate the concept of the free market since they find it threatening, and, therefore see everything through the prism of taxation forcing certain behaviors.  They believe that taxes on the 'egregious' profits of oil companies will result in lowered prices in the marketplace.  They simply do not want to understand that oil companies don't pay taxes; the customers of oil companies pay taxes...and that is us.

That starkly displays the difference in message, and it explains why there is a Rush Limbaugh and why his popularity is probably the equal or better of all the liberal 'talkers' in combination.  And it explains the extreme dislike, even hatred, with which the likes of Limbaugh are perceived by their enemies.  It also explains why liberals think that legislation will cure this problem as well as all other problems.

This 'freedom of thought-freedom of speech' thing is a real problem...for those whose thoughts are not swallowed by the listening masses.

Unless you've been on a deserted island, I imagine you know that Tim Russert died a few days ago.

I didn't watch his 'Meet The Press' show often, but when I did I was always impressed with how well he did interviewing a wide mix of guests.  The discussions about him, following the news that he had died, seemed to center on the words in the lead-in to this Blog.

He was so good at what he did because he was normal and fair and always well-prepared.  These thoughts were repeated regularly during the past week.  They speak volumes about this man who was born and raised in Buffalo, NY; whose dad was a garbage collector; and, who had a strong faith.  He kept his personal politics in check because he knew it was important that he present an impartial image.  Those who talked about being on his show mentioned that he was something of an 'equal opportunity' inquisitioner.  He was tough on everybody without regard to their politics.

It struck me that the very words being used to describe his uniqueness were also telling in that they were the antithesis of the usual fare we're fed by the 'talking heads'.  Tim Russert stood out amongst his peers because he was normal and fair and well-prepared.  And the words being used were being used by those very same 'talking heads'.  They were not, of course, aware that they were casting stones at themselves at the very same time they were lauding their former counter-part.

I suspect that we can all learn from the likes of a Tim Russert.  I know I can.  He loved his family.  He never forgot his roots.  He never forgot his faith.  He was always prepared when he went to work.  He gave every day his very best.  He remembered his friends and apparently had no enemies, certainly in his mind anyway.  He told people he loved them.  He was himself, not someone he thought he was supposed to be in order to fit into the world that he'd become part of after leaving his roots in Buffalo.

I hope I can remember Tim Russert for a good long time to come.  I probably will somewhat regularly as I see the antithesis on my television screen.

It is expected that Corsair Capital, a New York based private equity group will sign a deal with National City today that will affect Germantown.  You've guessed by now, if you're a regular reader, that the effect is to keep our newest bank name, National City Bank, in Germantown, at least for the foreseeable future.  Corsair and some other individual investors will put around $6 billion into National City at a share price of some $5.00.

We earlier traced the evolution from St. Francis Bank to Mid America Bank to National City Bank in the first Blog that discussed the plight of National City.  It's shares closed at $8.33 on Friday and that marked a 52 week decline in value of 78%.

So, it appears that my friendly, efficient bankers in Germantown will continue to be there when I need them.  I'm happy for them and for me and the rest of their customers.  Changing banks is a nuisance.  If there are direct deposits, those must be changed.  If there are automatic withdrawls, those must be changed.  New checks and bank cards must be obtained, and decisions as to which of the numerous accounts offered is the right account need to be made.  If Internet banking is involved, there is another level of change, and if telephone banking is involved, yet another level.

We sometimes are oblivious to the things that happen on Wall Street and the world but many of those distant happenings directly involve us in one or another ways.  This whole subject has been one that most of us has not followed...and yet it has an impact on our nice little village.  Our economy has truly become a global economy whether for the better or not.  IBM sold its laptop computer business to a company in China.  The Jaguar and Range Rover nameplates are now owned by a company in India.  GM is building a new engine plant in Brazil.  Medical x-rays are read off shore.  When the Far East markets hiccup, Wall Street flinches.  The demand for gasoline and diesel fuel in India and China have thrown our prices into a seemingly unending upward spiral.

Perhaps more important, these changes have occurred in a relatively short span of time..in decades rather than centuries.

The HBO network has retained the services of Bill Maher for some time now.  I don't watch HBO only because it isn't part of my DirectTV package.  I likely will not watch HBO in the future, but for another reason.

Mr. Maher has chosen the time of the visit of this Pope to our country to launch into a vitriolic attack on Catholics and the Catholic church.  I am not Catholic, but I do consider myself to be a Christian.  I am not favorably disposed toward pedophilia nor toward members of the priesthood who have engaged in and/or tacitly condoned that despicable conduct.  I do know that pedophilia amongst clergy has not been limited to the Catholic church.

Mr. Maher has chosen this subject as his tool to castigate the Pope and the Catholic church during this visit to the U.S.  Among his comments, supposedly the comments from one of those who poses as a member of the literati in America, are the reference to the man who is now the Pope having been conscripted into the German military during the period of the rise of the Nazi movement in Germany.  The man who is now Pope was reportedly twelve years of age when this occurred.  Maher calls the Pope a Nazi but I've so far seen no evidence that this man who is now Pope ever was a member of the Nazi movement.

Mr. Maher has called the Catholic church a cult that supports pedophilia.  Mr. Maher has referred to the Catholic church as the 'Bear Stearns' of organized pedophilia in the world.

These comments are likely within Maher's rights as a citizen of our great country.  HBO has so far remained silent thus giving Maher its blessing to proceed unchecked.

This is an example of just how repugnant free speech can be.  This is an example of just how permissive some of our news and entertainment organizations seem to be.  That so few of the literati have had anything to say about this is telling indeed.

The New England Journal of Medicine, yesterday, published results of a study on prostate cancer and the various treatment regimens employed.  I selected this as today's topic since I'm a man, I've had friends who've died from the disease, I have friends who now have the disease, I'm in the target age group and fully one in six males will be diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer in men and the number two killer second only to lung cancer according to the American Cancer Society.  It is predicted that there will be some 186,000 diagnoses this year and some 28,700 deaths are expected from the disease.

The New England Journal of Medicine reported on the study of a group of 1,201 men and their partners after three kinds of treatment had been administered.  Those were: removal of the prostate; implantation of radioactive 'seeds'; and, radiation therapy.  Of the group who had received either radioactive 'seeds' or radiation therapy, one-third also took hormones.  The Journal was careful to note that the patients and doctors had made decisions independent of this study so the conclusions drawn were said to be suggestive rather than conclusive.

The conclusion drawn by the urologist who led this study, Dr. Martin Sanda of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, was this (as he was quoted saying): "Doctors or their patients should think twice if they're considering hormone therapy.  Most of the cancers treated nowadays are not really that aggressive."

The good news is that more than 99% of patients survive at least five years.  Thirty years ago, only about two-thirds survived that long.

This study showed that too much treatment can make a patient needlessly miserable. Complaints with hormone therapy centered on lack of sexual drive, problems with urination and bowel problems.

I remember very well my conversations with my friend John, of whom I've written before.  He was adamant that the quality of his life was more the issue than the length of his life.  He was encouraged to take hormone therapy and refused to do so after reading of the possible side effects.  He knew that was the right decision for him and maintained his quality of life until very near the end.

What lesson can we all draw from this?  I think the most important lesson is this:  Men should not avoid being examined for prostate enlargement and PSA counts for fear of what might be detected.  That is a very, very small price to pay for the peace of mind that flows for most of us as the result.  And, early detection is by far and away better for the patient because treatment can be begun before the cancer has grown too large to control.

The rule of thumb that I've always heard was that we men should begin to be examined for prostate issues at age 50.  My  feeling is that even earlier would be better.  My friend was diagnosed at about his age fifty and the cancer had already gotten a good start by that time.

A short week ago I wrote about Eliot Spitzer and the havoc that he had wrought as the Attorney General of the State of New York.  I referred to the 'trail of carnage' that he had left behind in his quest for higher office.

Yesterday the press reported about his apparent involvement in a prostitution ring, and we witnessed his non-apology apology delivered in front of his weary and saddened wife.  Eliot Spitzer appears to have been caught up in his own 'trail of carnage' as has his wife and their three daughters.  He will likely be forced from office in disgrace; he could be indicted on federal charges since the prostitute traveled across state lines to meet him in his Washington, D.C. hotel room where he registered in the name of one of his friends.

His political enemies, and there are legions of those, are after his head, politically speaking.  Politics in New York is indeed blood sport.  The story will unfold over the coming days and weeks and months.

But all this notwithstanding, there still are those who were hurt by this megalomaniac (my diagnosis) during his meteoric ride.  And there are those who have been hurt badly by this latest revelation.

Yet, as much as I dislike the actions of this man, I feel saddened, particularly for his family.  It may be that his past has caught up with him; I don't know.  But I still think of those who lost companies and positions and reputations by his doing.  Forgiveness is difficult but certainly a worthy goal, especially it seems for an Eliot Spitzer.

Eliot Spitzer was the New York State Attorney General before he became Governor of that state.  Spitzer has the well-deserved reputation as a 'pit bull'.  The Wall Street Journal editors brought up his trail of carnage (my term) today discussing what he did to major organizations in America with his 'pit bull' style of threatening companies with enough damage to cause them to 'voluntarily' do as he directed they do. He made himself the investigator, the accuser, the judge and the jury.

The two companies mentioned this morning are AIG, the world's largest insurance organization, at least at that time, and Marsh & McLennan, a leading U.S. insurance brokerage organization.  Spitzer's threats caused both companies to fire their Chairmen.  Both companies have been on a downhill slide ever since costing shareholders huge sums of money in retirement funds, stock portfolios and so forth.  Many of these investors are you and me, whether or not we know it.

Those were companies caught up in Mr. Spitzer's web in New York City.  There was another that is much nearer and dearer to many in the Milwaukee area.  Strong Funds, and the related companies in Dick Strong's business holdings at the time, found themselves caught up in the Spitzer meat grinder.  The charges were of a questionable nature but that didn't stop the meat grinder that was Eliot Spitzer.  The Strong organization's good name was soon damaged beyond repair.

In the end, Dick Strong was forced to sell his companies at essentially 'fire sale' prices.  He paid significant fines for the trading activities in which he supposedly engaged.  The remains are now operated as part of the Wells Fargo organization.  The hundreds and hundreds of Strong employees who lost their jobs have, I hope, found their way into other organizations and may have forgotten much of the anguish they were personally subjected to by the Spitzer meat grinder.

Dick Strong, who was, and is, one of the finest men our community could hope to have in it, has survived.  Certainly his personal wealth probably has diminished somewhat although he is not in danger of losing a home or having nothing to eat.  There are some who will look at his situation and feel good because one of the 'haves' got what he deserved.  Those people are sadly misinformed and will simply have to live with their misshapen ideas.

The real loss has been for our community.  The companies Dick ran were major contributors to the community.  Those companies are gone and I doubt that Wells Fargo has taken over the philanthropy that was once the domain of the Strong group of companies.  Few buyers would have done so.  I am sure that Dick is still doing good works because that is who he is.

All this because a man named Eliot Spitzer managed to bull his way through the office of Attorney General of New York state in his quest for the Governor's chair and maybe even a run for President at some point in his political career.  I'll remember to my last day, and I'll remain saddened over what this man brought upon us...in the name of justice.

I will be in our nation's capitol for a few days and thought I'd share thoughts from here for those who might be interested.  I have been coming out for the past few years to meet with our Wisconsin Representatives and Senators on behalf of an industry trade association of which I'm a part.

This is always an interesting trip.  As I stepped outside Reagan National airport this afternoon, I was greeted by temperatures in the low 50s and a sunny sky.  This is where it disappeared to from Wisconsin!  Our special airline, Midwest, made the ride very comfortable and the cookies were just as good as ever.

As I rode into the city toward my hotel, I noticed the fairly large number of tourists out and about, lining up to see the Washington Monument, strolling on The Mall and gawking at all the famous buildings like we tourists do.  Our nation's capitol is a very special place no matter how maddening some of the laws that are passed here seem to us.  It is the place that the rest of the world looks to as the home of the greatest democracy ever seen.  They sometimes love to hate us, but they almost all envy what we have.

The city is comprised of people from virtually every country in the world.  Some are here as diplomats, others have moved here for one reason or another and still more are students.  It is a truly cosmopolitan city. 

I am fortunate to only see the better parts of Washington, for this great city isn't so great as one moves outward from the epicenter.  It is probably the most government-dependent community in our country, and it doesn't work very well from my perspective.  Tight gun controls haven't stopped the shootings.  There are only a handful of places where I can puff a cigar for all indoor smoking has been banned.  The homeless beg for money within a hundred yards of the White House and live in the many parks and on the many benches found in the city. 

As you can tell, I see a city of vast contrasts.  On The Hill, our elected representatives occupy the seat of government while a few miles away one can see some of the poorest sections of any city in America.  I am always torn by that, but I know I'll be home in Germantown soon.  It is a shame that some of these residents can't 'go home' to a Germantown somewhere.  And, it's a shame that some of the politicians can't do us a favor, and go home wherever that is for them.

Earmarks...

The Republicans are fighting amongst themselves over whether or not to try to control their budget 'earmarks', and if so, how to proceed.  The party's elected members met over the week-end and failed to take any real steps to end earmarks.  The President is expected to address earmarks in his State of the Union address this evening.  It is reported that he will tell Congress that he'll veto any appropriation bills for 2009 that have greater than 50% as much in the way of earmarks as the same bill in 2008 carried.

That is a start, but until we have convinced our elected officials that they are spending our money and not their money, we will make little if any real progress.

And, this may well be the only true bipartisan area we have.  It is an affliction of both major parties as well as the small group calling themselves independents.

Limits On The WCCA...

WCCA stands for Wisconsin Consolidated Court Automation and it has a website that you can access here.

This site permits any citizen to locate information about court decisions, charges filed, cases scheduled and so on by county.  If you have an interest in where the case involving John and Jane Doe stands, you would access the site, pick the county (if you know it) and key in one of the names.  You'll then see the actions that have been taken, dismissals if that is the case, etc.

For some strange reason there have been two recent attempts to limit public access.  Last summer, two Democrats (Schneider of Wisconsin Rapids and Kessler of Milwaukee) mounted such an effort.  They would've permitted access only for court officials, law enforcement personnel, attorneys and journalists.  Now Rep. Vos (R-Racine) and Sen. Lassa (D-Stevens Point) want to limit access by removing certain cases from this site.  Those cases or charges would include a civil forfeiture or misdemeanor within 90 days after dismissal, a finding of not guilty or if the case has been overturned on appeal and then dismissed.  Felonies would carry the same requirement except the time frame would be extended to 120 days.

Both of these efforts are misguided at best and an assault on our rights at worst.  Wouldn't the accused rather have the information there for all to see if he or she had been absolved or if the case had been dismissed.  Why would we be concerned about those convicted? 

An example of the significance can be found in articles now running in the Journal Sentinel concerning physicians who have been involved in numerous complaints alledging malpractice over the course of time.  Many of those records would become unavailable under these efforts to wipe the slate clean.  This is not only an assault on our rights but it is also potentially going to endanger lives.

Anti-Gun Proposals...

Many in the group that would outlaw ownership of guns, or the group that wants to ban the carrying of guns (that is legal in 47 other states) would have us believe that their solution is the answer.

Here are some snippets that seem to point in the other direction:

• New Jersey adopted a very strict gun law in 1966 and by 1968 the murder rate was up 46% and the robbery rate was up nearly 100%.
• Hawaii adopted a series of anti-gun laws and its murder rate tripled over the next ten years.
• Washington, D.C. imposed strict gun control laws in 1976; its murder rate has grown by 134% since.
• England banned handgun ownership in 1997, and the number of citizens injured by firearms has more than doubled since.
• Prior to these actions, the statistics cited had been falling.

When guns are banned, only the bad guys have guns.  In states where concealed carry laws are in place, the bad guys really have to think hard about trying anything.

Miller Executive Dies In Walkers Point Shooting...

The Director of Compensation and Benefits for Miller Brewing was killed at about 1:10AM on Sunday morning after leaving a bar in Walkers Point.  He was accosted by a robber, gave the person his wallet and was then shot to death as he sat in his auto.

The concern immediately arose over whether Milwaukee would suffer as the result of this in the process that is now ongoing as to where the headquarters of the new combined Miller Coors will be located.  It is reported that crime and homicide rates rank first in the equation that most corporations use to determine quality of life rankings.  The Journal Sentinel reported this morning, and I paraphrase, that Milwaukee is 2.3% larger in population than Denver, has 228% more violent crime including 263% more homicides.  This is extrapolated from the FBI's statistics for the first half of 2007 that were recently released.

Would you think about that if you were making the decision?  Would you add in the fact that MPS is graduating 50% or fewer of all students that start as freshmen?

Seemingly everytime we pick up a newspaper or periodical we see that health care costs have risen again.  The only real question anymore is 'How Much?'.  Of course, if we still have health insurance, the premium rates continue to go up and up.  What in the world can we do about this?  Would statewide mandatory insurance coverage do the trick?  Can we somehow legislate lower insurance premiums?  Are the drug companies really the culprits?  Maybe we simply need to move to Canada or Europe.

Recent studies show that our national health care spending increased in 2006 by 6.7% to $2.1 trillion.  That means that one out of every six dollars spent in our national economy goes for health care.  The 'good news' in this staggering number is that this is actually slower growth than we saw for 2005.  Apparently we're going in the right direction, even if too slowly.

Another amazing fact, to me at least, is the amount of 'out-of-pocket' spending each of us averages after insurance premiums, etc.  In 2006, we spent, on average, 12% out-of-pocket for our health care expenses.  Know what we spent out-of-pocket in 1960?  We spent 47% out-of-pocket for health care expenses. 

That means that we are shielded to a much greater degree today from our real health care costs than we were in 1960.  Our out-of-pocket costs have decreased steadily since 1960.  We are often at the point today where we think of the cost of health care as being the $10 or $20 co-pay we have to come up with when we go to see the doctor.  Or, the $20 or $30 dollars we have to cough up for medicines.  Those amounts are very small percentages of the total costs.

Why is this important?  It is important because we need to think about what we're spending if we're ever going to be able to bring this cost spiral under control.  If we come to understand that the real cost of the doctor visit is in the range of $125 to $150 or more, we can begin to understand that maybe we shouldn't be running to the doctor everytime we have a runny nose or a cough.

Another very interesting fact is this:  more than 50% of all health care claims costs in America today are to cover lifestyle-related illnesses.  Those are the things that you and I can control to one degree or another.  But, we can't control them if we don't know about it or if we choose not to do anything about it.  What are 'lifestyle' issues?  Smoking, alcohol use, obesity and simply laying around doing no exercise.

Does this apply to us?  Here are the most current facts:  One in every four Americans eat fast food every day!  Six of ten Americans do not exercise or seldom exercise!  Two of every three Americans are classified as either overweight or obese!

This is the real source of our health care cost crisis.  We have met the enemy and it is us!

No mandatory state programs, or profit controls on drug companies or anything else is going to solve this problem.  The simple truth is that this is up to us.  All the rest of these proposals are simply pablum calculated to make us feel good.

That is why this 'stuff' is flowing from the mouths of politicans.  And it does nothing to solve the problem!

Let your politicians know that you understand this.  If they really want to help us, they'll begin an educational program using some of the 'smoker money' to get the true message out.  And, be sure to tell them we do not want laws banning fast food or drinking or smoking.  We need to take responsibility for ourselves.  No one else can do that for us.  The marketplace will make its own corrections just as you've begun to see with the menu changes going on in the world of fast foods, for example.

Maybe if insurance companies were permitted to charge people what we deserve to be charged based on our lifestyle habits, we'd begin to see these changes occur.  If I smoke, I pay more.  If I'm overweight, I pay a surcharge.  Make me feel my wallet lightening up if I don't take personal responsibility (just don't think this is your new way to raise taxes). 

Don't just continue to blame big health, or big drugs or big insurance!  You are doing nothing but pandering when you resort to this, and we're on to you!

How in the world can one combine freedom and light bulbs in the same context?  Well, let's see.

We are being told that incandescent light bulbs are being eliminated in favor of a nationwide conversion to the use of compact fluorescent lamps.  Those are, so far, considerably more expensive to produce (although subsidized by tax money to make them seem less expensive), are not capable of generating the kind of lumens to which we're accustomed, the color of light is different from what we're used to seeing and they have no where near the flexibility we find with incandescent bulbs.

As if this weren't sufficient, the idea of using compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) laden with mercury is a bit disconcerting to me.  I have quite a few fluorescent tubes and a couple of CFLs that I need to toss out.  I called the Village of Germantown staff to learn about proper disposal.  The nice lady who answered on the solid waste disposal line said, "That's a problem."  As we talked about this further, I learned that the next dangerous waste disposal date is set for September, 2008 in West Bend.  Our recycling center is either unable or unwilling to accept such things.

I sought an alternative that would be available sooner.  There is a site in Port Washington equipped to take these items but they charge for the privilege of recycling such things.  I think you and I both know that these things are regularly finding their way into our landfill sites, and that will increase at quite a rate as more people are forced to begin their use.  We are creating a serious mercury problem for ourselves that will manifest some years down the road.  Our land, wetlands and streams, rivers and lakes will be more polluted than they are today.

All this got me thinking about where we've come from, why we're where we are, and just what it all means.  I'm not at all sure that I have everything figured out, but maybe you can help me work through the parts I don't seem to understand.

We are using more carbon-based energy than many think we ought, but we also ignore solutions that we've mastered many years ago.  Nuclear energy is safe and efficient and yet we've not built new reactors in years.  We have oil fields available on our turf but we're forbidden by our own government from drilling into that apparently sacred soil.  There is more oil available today but we can't refine it any faster than we are today even if we had access to a greater supply.  Why?  Because the government has caused the establishment of new refining facilities to be so cumbersome and expensive that it simply is not cost-effective for investors to plow money into that use.

The grand movement by those who think we need to be 'green' has caused our 'political' will to be turned against the will of the majority of citizens.  The 'green' people are outnumbered by the 'non-green' people; yet, our main stream press and politicos continue to thump the drum for being 'green'.  Lobbyists spend a lot of money to keep this political engine humming along.  Government has the best of both worlds in this situation.  It is getting money from both sides of the argument, so why not keep the argument alive by dithering.

The 'global warming' group adds fuel to these flames.  It seems that virtually everything causes global warming.  It also seems that global warming causes virtually everything.  I could easily understand hot weather being a direct function of global warming.  I have a little more difficulty believing that cold weather is also caused by global warming.  Until very recently, any debate has been squelched; that is now changing and, I hope, we'll begin to see the real debate taking place.  I cannot buy the suppositions of Al Gore's slide show.  I can buy the opinions, however, of a very well educated state representative by the name of Jim Ott (a professional meteorologist), who actually knows of which he speaks.  An interesting phenomenon from a politician, I agree.

I harangue on the subject of the 'slippery slope' more than many would like, but there are simply so many examples that I cannot help myself!  Then, to add fuel to that flame, I came across a statement in the Wall Street Journal letters section on Friday made by a fellow whose name is Constantine E. Anagnostopoulos from Bloomfield, MI.  To paraphrase, he stated that we began as a country in which everything was permitted except for those few things that had been forbidden such as killing another person without provocation.  Today, we are a country where many things are forbidden and fewer and fewer things seem to be allowed. 

We have myriad laws on the books, and yet we continue to enact new laws every month that a government unit is in session.  There is nearly nothing that needs to be outlawed that hasn't had multiple laws forbidding it already enacted.  (An example is the creation of a law against use of cell phones when there is a perfectly good law against inattentive driving already on the books.)  We have become such a nation of laws and litigation that we actually stifle our creativity, our economy and our lives.  It is impossible for anyone today to account for every law that impacts a certain activity.  We even feel the need to have judges 'creating' laws that don't exist through their interpretations of existing language, or by opining as to what the original authors intended as the 'living' documents were penned.  Our laws are more designed to affect behaviors to which the ruling class does not subscribe than to actually outlaw something needing to be outlawed.  Laws today are much more the tool of social reformers than of policing agencies. 

These are all harbingers for our future existence.  If we continue on the path we're on, at the pace we're traveling, we'll have managed to destroy the freedoms generations before have fought and died for in a few short lifetimes.  Maybe the loss of great democracies, as history recounts, is our self-fulfilling prophecy.

All this began with a diatribe on light bulbs.  Wow! 

How tough must it be to have roused your membership 41 different times, only to have sand kicked in your face?  That is where 'poor' Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) finds himself as the week begins in his world as U.S. Senate Majority Leader.

Sen. Reid has played to the far left side of his party and has sought, 41 times now, to end the Iraq conflict by snuffing out funding and/or imposing requirements that troop withdrawls be completed by a time-certain.  In return, he has failed to gain sufficient bipartisan votes to override the veto either made or threatened by the President.  It has been said that the definition of a person who is crazy is when that person continues to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.

Adding insult to injury, he now pouts and says that he'll not permit any more money to be voted for and sent to our troops until after the first of next year.  Never mind the needs of the troops.  I'm reminded of the child's comeback:  "Who died and made you King (or Queen)?

Reid must really believe that us Americans want to lose in Iraq, whether or not we were in favor of the entry into that conflict.  Why else, unless he is as clueless as he appears at times, would he persist in this charade.

What charade you ask?  The charade in which he claims he supports the troops while he denies them the funding necessary to continue to bring the fight.  The charade in which he has taken center stage with a handful of like-minded elected officials (mostly Democrats but also some Republicans that have earned the classic branding of RINO...Republican In Name Only) to force the Commander-In-Chief to pull our troops when they're finally on top of the problem in Iraq.

Reid professes to think he can force a time-certain by which all troops will be out of Iraq, and that this could happen without the rest of the world seeing it as America's surrender...much as they saw Viet Nam.  Isn't it ironic, and very sad, that it is always the politicians that cause us to lose wars, and never the fighting troops we deploy?  Isn't it strange that virtually everyone of the people in the U.S. Senate voted in favor of the move into Iraq, and now many seemingly have developed institutional amnesia?  If a person can take such a decision so lightly, they should not be making such decisions on our behalf.

Isn't it sad that when even the New York Times is forced to admit our troops are making good progress in Iraq, Sen. Reid continues to tell us that all is lost.  There will, he says, never be an end to the fighting, the people themselves don't want it, it is a civil war and blah, blah, blah, blah.  Even Iran has markedly reduced its illegal movement of the new and improved "improvised explosive devices" (IEDs), but Sen. Reid is impervious to good news.  Even the warring factions have chosen to become supporters of the troops since the option was to be removed from the earth forever.  And, the citizens of Iraq (you remember all those people running through the streets with purple fingers after they risked their lives to vote?) are squarely behind the troops.  They love the fact they can shop in the local marketplace, send their children (boys AND girls) to school, watch non-imposed television, and use computers and the Internet.

And, if we need anymore proof...even the French are true believers!

It is simply impossible for me to comprehend how one sees only bad news.  I just don't think that is possible.  Then, there must be those people who see good news but who insist on portraying it as bad news for some ulterior purpose.  Among the many descriptive terms for such people and actions that come to mind is this...disingenuous.

Too many of our elected representatives turn out to be disingenuous.  And they need be remembered so that we can turn them back to pasture at the next election and put some fresh faces and capable minds there in their places.  I think the vast majority of us wants a positive government.  There is already too much disaster and bad news in the world to desire that more be manufactured.  Voters are the only group that can make this happen.

That is your job and my job.  If we fail to get the job done, we'll know exactly where to place the blame...just look in the mirror.

Neither have I [except when Al Gore sneaks onto my television screen], but I came across a website that is selling 'Carbon Offsets'.  If I buy enough carbon offsets, they'll give me the assurance that I've canceled out all the bad stuff I'm doing to the environment.  Does this also mean there is a site somewhere that will take my money and forgive me for other bad things I do or contemplate doing?

I drive an SUV that calculates out to producing 27,174 lbs of carbon dioxide per year.  If I pay this company $79.95 for the first year, I'm off the hook for being such an environmental hazard.  I get a static-cling window decal telling everyone how great I am and a bumper sticker.  The company sends my money to somebody else who'll plant trees or build wind generator farms or whatever seems to be the 'saving grace' of the day.  They assure me that all this is audited by the Center for Resource Solutions, a non-profit (which must mean I can trust them implicitly) organization that apparently knows that there really is global warming and that we humans are so smart that we can reverse it even though it seems these cycles have gone on and remain unchecked for ages.

If, by now, I'm really feeling guilty, I can also buy carbon offsets to cover my home.  My home calculates to produce 31,551 pounds of carbon dioxide annually (and they remind me this is the equivalent of burning 1,613 gallons of gasoline).  It will only cost me $159.68 a year, but they tell me I can reduce that by using their home energy tips.  Those tips include: washing with cold water, turning off my lights, getting rid of a second refrigerator [which I'll have go out and buy], and using CFL bulbs [even though those are dangerous because they contain mercury].  Now I am forced to try to decide between carbon dioxide and mercury as to which is worse for me and the planet.

By the way, I can buy carbon offsets to take care of weddings, and I can give carbon offset gifts, too.

This has been a bit tongue in cheek as you've probably surmised.  The company is located in San Francisco [who'd have guessed that?].  It was founded by a college professor [who'd have thought that possible?].  It is run by people who appear to be thirty or younger, and who have credentials from several liberal universities [sorry for the redundancy].

Nowhere did I find an offset coupon available to ward off the nasty effects of bovine flatulence, however.  That should be a big seller in Wisconsin.  I suspect that they're working on that but I can't be certain.  Nowhere do they mention giving money to the home for displaced polar bears.  It seems they're missing some opportunities.

ABC News did a story about this company and carbon offsets on April 22, 2007.  It was filled with phrases like "a way to theoretically cancel out or neutralize the carbon dioxide that you produce", and reminds us that Al Gore lives in a 20 room house with a $30,000 annual utility bill while he claims his life is "carbon neutral".

The topper for me was learning that carbon offsets and carbon credits are traded as commodities on the open market, and this trade activity is a multi-billion dollar per year business.

Given the lack of  anything but assumptions that, to me, are not based on fact since the facts don't exist, this whole thing would come near being called a 'scam'.  People are paying other people for absolution of their environmental sins but continue to do that for which they were absolved.  Nothing changes except that some money moves from one place to another in the name of eliminating global warming.

But, of course, I forget the Nobel peace prize having been awarded to Mr. Gore.  Shame on me!

I can forgive Alfred Nobel for having invented dynamite, but only a fiend in human form could have invented the Nobel Prize.  George Bernard Shaw

You've probably heard more than enough about 'waterboarding', a technique employed (or not employed depending upon whom you choose to believe) to gather information from people who want to cause us harm.

The subject found itself heavily debated in the discussion about our new U.S. Attorney General, Michael Mukasey.  Senators can seemingly connect everything to approvals of presidential appointments.  Both Senators Kohl and Feingold chose to vote against the confirmation of Mukasey.  Sen. Kohl was quoted as saying he did so because of Mukasey's unwillingness to call 'waterboarding' torture.  Sen. Feingold used that as part of his reasoning, but he was more concerned with his age-old drive to increase Congress' authority at the expense of the Executive branch of our government.  As an aside, what would Feingold's position on that issue be if he really thought he had a chance to be President?

This issue is, for me, a non-issue.  In my simplistic view of the world, there are good guys and not-so-good guys.  I think of us as being among the good guys.

If a not-so-good guy is trying to kill me or my family or my American brothers and sisters, I want to be able to use whatever technique might prove necessary to protect us all.  I frankly agree with Mukasey who called 'waterboarding' repugnant.  But then I also find death at someone else's hands to be repugnant.  If we must use techniques that we deplore in order to protect ourselves and our way of life, is that because we are wrong-headed or is it because the not-so-good guys are wrong-headed?

Those of the more liberal persuasion seem prone to thinking that we are guilty for defending ourselves and appear to be far more concerned with how someone in another country might view us.  Those of us who are of the conservative persuasion, on the other hand, would much rather avoid being attacked and killed than we are concerned over how someone in another country might see us.

That makes us out, in the minds of the liberals, to be incapable of "intelligent debate", and "uncaring", and devoid of the mental capability to see the "nuances and subtleties" involved in the "world view".

In my mind, that makes us safe...and I am far, far more concerned with my safety and that of my country than I am with the opinion of a citizen of a foreign country.  Oh yes, my knuckles obviously drag on the ground so it'll be easy to identify me around Germantown.

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

H.L.Mencken

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness……That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed……

The Declaration of Independence sets forth the very reasons our forefathers sought to create this beautiful country of which we’re all a part. The list of complaints against the King of Great Britain continues until finally fifty-five very brave souls affixed their names at the bottom.

It is good that we pause to reflect on this solemn occasion, but it is also unfortunate that few of us give any real thought to what it is we celebrate on July 4th.

We are equal one with another. Nothing says that some are more equal than others. This, to me, is a two-edged sword. I should not have greater rights than any others, nor should any others have greater rights than me. Our Supreme Courts, state and national, seem to lose sight of this from time to time in their over-zealous pursuit of what they determine to be equality.

We have the right to live our lives. We are free to live our lives as we choose. Those who would limit those choices need to remember this. Similarly, others have that same right. We must be cognizant of that and far more accepting of others than we tend to be on occasion.

We have the right to pursue happiness. There are no guarantees of happiness for any of us to be found in this great document, simply the fact that we can pursue our definition of happiness. We would be wise, indeed, to understand that happiness is not at all related to possessions, but is something that comes with inner peace.

Governments are created by us, and derive their powers from us. It seems all too often that our elected government officials lose sight of the fact that they are beholden to do our will rather than us being beholden to do their will. Our regular participation in all elections… our INFORMED participation in all elections…is the demonstration of our “check and balance” system. We abrogate our rights to demand accountability from our elected officials when we fail to exercise our rights.

Indeed, these are powerful words for every day of the year…not just July 4th!