Recession Ending or More Economic Smoke and Mirrors

by Mike

Finally after months of getting lambasted, some slightly good news on the economic front.

From the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States — decreased at an annual rate of 1.0 percent in the second quarter of 2009, (that is, from the first quarter to the second), according to the “advance” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP decreased 6.4 percent. read more…

The Gross Domestic Product of the US is not in it abysmal tailspin, the descent to rock bottom has slowed. This, according to evidence, is a result of the ARRA or the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.

If you remember when we presented the the historical data in Economic Realities on the “Recovery” the calculation for GDP was discussed.

GDP = private consumption + government + investment + net exports

The decrease in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected negative contributions from nonresidential fixed investment, personal consumption expenditures (PCE), residential fixed investment, private inventory investment, and exports that were partly offset by positive contributions from federal government spending and state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased.

The much smaller decrease in real GDP in the second quarter than in the first primarily reflected much smaller decreases in nonresidential fixed investment, in exports, and in private inventory investment, upturns in federal government spending and in state and local government spending, and a smaller decrease in residential fixed investment that were partly offset by a much smaller decrease in
imports and a downturn in PCE.

What does all of this mean? It’s actually quite simple, smaller decreases in private sector investments of material and inventory, smaller decreases in residential investments on material and inventory (i.e materials and inventory an materials owned by a landlord and rented to a tenant.), smaller decreases in personal spending by consumers than in Q1 were offset by increases in federal and state expenditures.

The Bureau also put out that government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased 10.9 percent in the second quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 4.3 percent in the first.

A trend I noticed with the increase in personal income increases got me stoked at first until I dug a little and found some other information.

First the good news.

Disposition of personal income

Current-dollar personal income increased $8.0 billion (0.3 percent) in the second quarter, in contrast to a decrease of $251.7 billion (8.0 percent) in the first.

Now the reality check.

From the BEA report on PERSONAL INCOME AND OUTLAYS, May 2009.

Personal income increased $167.1 billion, or 1.4 percent, and disposable personal income (DPI) increased $178.1 billion, or 1.6 percent, in May, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) increased $25.1 billion, or 0.3 percent. In April, personal income increased $78.3 billion, or 0.7 percent, DPI increased $140.0 billion, or 1.3 percent, and PCE increased $1.0 billion, or less than 0.1 percent, based on revised estimates. The pattern of changes in personal income and in DPI reflect, in part, the pattern of increased government social benefit payments associated with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

You will note that while we see a remarkable increase in disposable personal income, or the amount of personal income less personal taxes, it appears to be brought on by government assistance. The next question is how much does that assistance amount to, economically speaking and does it translate into a “recovery.”

The May change in DPI was boosted as a result of provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Provisions of the Act reduced personal current taxes and increased government social benefit payments. Excluding these special factors, which are discussed more fully below, DPI increased $20.6 billion, or 0.2 percent, in May, following an increase of $101.3 billion, or 0.9 percent, in April.

This DPI before being adjusted for by government assistance was $20.6 billion, versus $178.1 billion, as is noted by the BEA.

This can be correlated by adding the amount of personal current transfer receipts to the amount of the non-government influenced disposal personal income. The personal current transfer receipts are payments you might receive for not performing services. (i.e medicaid, medicare, ssi, unemployment benefits, tax credits, etc.)

Amount of PCTR boost to the DPI in May $157.6 billion + non-adjusted DPI $20.6 billion= $178.2 billion. (Please note, the extra $.1 billion difference cannot be accounted for.)

Conclusion: Once past the smoke and mirrors of political talking points, what you see is an economy that is driven by government assistance and spending.  The unfortunate downside to this is it cannot be kept up permanently and is unsustainable.

The risk being run here is two fold. First, there is a question as to whether the private sector can catch up quickly enough to take over and provide jobs and wages to workers in time. Secondly, there is the debt being incurred through massive spending. This will eventually lead to a devalued dollar and inflation unless the Federal Reserve can react quickly enough.

I do not want to leave anyone with the impression that the unemployed workforce should not have been given benefits or extra help that they deserve. The economic assistance provided to them and their families was one of the only aspects of the ARRA I agreed with one hundred percent.

Conversely though, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that we are absolutely and beyond a shadow of doubt in a recovery. What we might be seeing is a slowing of economic constriction (A very good thing.) or an economic infrastructure reinforced by massive government intervention (A very horrible thing.).

Best advice, remain prudent, stay hopeful but not foolish, watch the trends closely, and keep 1937-38 in the back of your mind.

Top 1% of taxpayers are paying more than their fair share.

by Mike

Here is the update, in 2007 our progressive income tax code has reached the height of progressitivity (The Tax Foundation’s own words.).

From the Tax Foundation.

Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the “rich” are not paying their fair share of taxes.

Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.

Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago. read more…

You might remember, if you were around, that in 1913 taxes on personal income was finally ratified as law. The marginal rates were a one percent tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a 6 percent surtax on incomes of more than $500,000. And now look at us.

My, my, my, progress sure is an expensive endeavor, isn’t it?

Democratic Conspiracies and the Birthers.

by Mike

Last week on his radio show, Lou Dobbs loosely agreed with a caller about the validity of Barack Obama’s citizenship, thus bringing into question the constitutional credibility of his Presidency.

Here is the audio, via the Progressive blogsite, Think Progress.

People whom believe this theory are know by the moniker of Birthers, much like 9-11 conspiratorial theorists were called Truthers.

This was an underground issue during the 2008 campaign which was thrown to the wayside as nonsense by reasonably minded people. However, with Dobbs bringing attention to it, unfortunately it has returned and is turning into, almost laughably, a talking point for the Left.

Anyone with any common sense realizes full and well that whether those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, Palin Derangement Syndrome, or Obama Derangement Syndrome have one thing in common. They are all deranged. But in all fairness, since we have briefly explored the Birther conspirators, it is only fair to follow their Left leaning counterparts.

Hits from the Left that they might want swept under the rug and forgotten about.

Palin:

First let’s start off with Atlantic blogger, Andrew Sullivan’s frothing obsession with the idea that Sarah Palin’s daughter was the real mother to Palin’s son Trig.

Or the recent Al Sharpton support of a caller who “put it out there” that Palin might have caused Michael Jackson’s death.

Bush:

Back in 2004, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. posed the conspiracy theory that Bush stole the 2004 election in a Rolling Stone article. According to the Cleveland Magazine.com Kennedy qualifies as a “nut job.”

The vaunted media giant, the New York Times, giving face time to 9-11 twoofers on the front page of their Metro section.

Or MSNBC’s drolling liberal political commentator, Keith Olbermann, and his long list of disconnected and unhinged conspiracy theories. Here are two, his hypothesizing that maybe a secret organization known as the Skull and Bones society was fielding two of its own candidates for the 2004 election or his threatening to quit MSNBC if his security wasn’t beefed up at the Republican National Convention out of fears he would be assassinated.

Sadly enough, some of our more demented and mentally deficient members of society actually consider this whack job a credible news source.

The point is, no matter who is in power the other side’s “loons” come out of the word work with crazier and crazier ideas, trying to out do their counterparts past attempts.

Brits souring on Afghanistan

by Jason

New York Times | UK Public Sees the Afghan War as Unwinnable

LONDON (AP) — A majority of people in Britain see the Afghan war as impossible to win, according to a new poll taken amid steeply rising casualties and growing government emphasis on finding a political solution to the conflict.

More than half of those questioned by pollster ComRes — 52 percent — said British troops should be pulled out of Afghanistan right away, while 43 percent thought they should stay. Fifty-eight percent of respondents viewed the war as unwinnable, while only 31 percent thought it could be won.

The poll of more than 1,000 people conducted last week was published in Tuesday’s Independent newspaper. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

A total of 191 British personnel have died in Afghanistan since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.

This comes after UK’s Foreign Minister David Miliband gave a speech to NATO on how Western forces could prevail against a stubborn and brutish insurgency. In it he hints at a more exertive and all encompassing role from NATO if the West are to prevail. 

The British troops have performed admirably and competently in standing with their long and storied tradition. But they have to do that while being undermanned and under equipped. They need more troops and equipment that will give them the advantage of speed and transport in an out of hot spots to disrupt Taliban activities. The calls for escalation in the U.K.s role in the past have been met with stiff political opposition. The conservative elements in the U.K. as well as top military commanders want more and better funded troops in Afghanistan to relieve those fighting from strain and to carry out the military mission more effectively. They argue the quicker that is done, the quicker the troops can come home. The liberal elements have dismissed most of those wishes outright despite calls from military commanders that troops in the field are in danger of over extension and general exhaustion. Now, with this new poll out one wonders how that will affect the political situation in Britain, especially as the U.S. seems poised to expand their role there in the coming years.

The Obama Doctrine: DOA

by Jason

President Bush’s foreign policy has often been reduced to unkind terms by his detractors. He was considered a reckless cowboy, a hick, an idiot that lucked his way into office and from the help of his father’s life time in politics — whom many owed favors to. His foreign policy has simplistically been defined as one of preemptive attacks. Like some shootem up western movie he may have watched on TV. The fact of the matter is America was preemptively attacked and the only countries that Bush sent the military into was one that harbored terrorists responsible for murder on a global scale, not to mention also in retaliation of the 9/11 attacks. The other was a continual threat to everyone around it. Saddam Hussein’s behavior caused millions of tax payers dollars to be spent baby sitting a dictator who didn’t respond well around others. Not to mention, the loss of American lives during the first Gulf War. After which, America was forced to shoulder the burden of protecting the Iraqi people from Saddam with a continual military presence in order to keep him from repeating terrible atrocities on the Kurds and Shias. As a result, he fired SAM missiles at U.S. pilots who were enforcing the Northern and Southern No Fly zones. Saddam’s story was typical of any tyrant and mass murderer who came before him. That even includes his end. Look it up. There was nothing special or sinister to it. In fact, the whole episode and actors are a common reoccurrence in world history. 

President Obama’s foreign policy, on the other hand, has been termed “Smart” Power. It has to be for all the reasons listed above. If Bush formulated “Dumb” Power and Cowboy Diplomacy, then President Obama must offer the very opposite. A sort of killem’ with kindness and level’em with competence and charm. Plus, throw an eagerness to apologize for America’s sins and miscalculations in grand venues on foreign land and we are on our way to reconciliation. A sort of Shakespearian, “Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears, I came to bury America’s history and past not praise it…”

Obama’s constant campaign mode and reluctance to let go of the guy who performed during it has blinded him. His failure to see that his “engagement” policy is only an opportunity for America’s enemies to gain more time while driving a wedge between us and Israel. By the way, our most important ally in the Middle East. His “open” hand approach has been irrelevant, and instead looks more like a limp wrist or a soft handshake. As in the case of Iran President Obama has revealed no strategic thinking. Instead he offers carrots; mostly in the form of respectful discourse — and possibly a chance to see him in person! As if his carrots are somehow better that all the others. His conversation so congenial it is disarming and life changing. His personality magically spellbinding and his character too unassailable. Absent the illusions of self-grandeur and a severe case of megalomania, this has been Europe’s approach for a decade and Carter’s before him. Because this has been defined as Obama’s foreign policy doctrine and the new way forward for America “as we seek to rebuild our image and reputation from the near irreparable harm caused by the previous administration,” I am afraid he is stuck with it. As I mentioned, there is no strategical quality to the policy. Just an bombardment of Obama Engagement. And because his image, ego and rhetoric are at the center of it he will actually see victory in being perpetually involved in negotiations, discussions and dialogue even if America’s interests aren’t necessarily advanced.

It should be noted and rather often that President Obama is not the first president to offer engagement as part of foreign policy. In our most modern era, Reagan did as did G.H.W. Bush. Unlike President Obama and Carter before him, the difference is they did it from a position of power and realism, and always from the perspective of American and freedom’s interest, never their own. 

Washington Post | Death of a Doctrine

But even lacking an ideology, the administration does have a doctrine. The defining principle of President Obama’s foreign policy is engagement with America’s adversaries. Much of the president’s public diplomacy has been designed to clear a path for such talks — expressing respect for legitimate grievances, apologizing for past wrongs and offering dialogue without preconditions.

Six months on, how fares the Obama doctrine? Concerning North Korea and Iran, the doctrine is on its deathbed.

North Korea responded to administration outreach by testing a nuclear weapon, firing missiles toward U.S. allies, resuming plutonium reprocessing and threatening the United States with a “fire shower of nuclear retaliation.” During congressional testimony, Clinton admitted, “At this point [it] seems implausible, if not impossible, the North Koreans will return to the six-party talks and begin to disable their nuclear capacity again.”

The Iranian regime’s reaction to engagement was to cut the ribbon on a nuclear enrichment facility, add centrifuges, conduct a fraudulent election, and kill and imprison a variety of political opponents. Regarding administration overtures, Clinton recently told the BBC, “We haven’t had any response. We’ve certainly reached out and made it clear that’s what we’d be willing to do . . . but I don’t think they have any capacity to make that kind of decision right now.”

The problem is not engagement itself — which was, after all, attempted in various forms by the previous administration. The difficulty is that the Obama foreign policy team has often argued that the reason for tension and conflict with nations such as North Korea and Iran is a lack of adequate American engagement — which is absurd, and which has raised absurdly high expectations.

Iraq and U.S. discuss arms deal

by Jason

Iraq was envisioned by the Bush administration to be a model for transformation in the Middle East. With the U.S. military mission winding down, Iraq may very well become a potent buffer state for the U.S. in the Middle East. With the help of U.S. weapons Iraq would be a highly capable military power second to Israel as the nation moves towards a more independent role in securing its own stability. Iraq and the U.S. are currently discussing the possibility of leaving some weapons, equipment and vehicles behind when American troops finally leave the country. Secondly, the purchase billions of dollars worth of F-16  fighter jets through 2020. However, the U.S. is making it clear that they desire Iraq to purchase equipment and weapons only from the U.S. 

Gates hopes to build on talks last week between Maliki and U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington seeking to establish what both countries have called “more normal” bilateral ties as U.S. forces stand down in Iraq.

Part of this is the billions of dollars Iraq is expected to spend on arms. Baghdad wanted to buy an initial squadron of 18 F-16s this year, with a goal to acquire as many as 96 through 2020, Lieutenant General Anwar Ahmed, head of the Iraqi Air Force, told Reuters in March, citing fears of Iran and Syria.

“We’ve said that we think it’s a good idea that they go with a multi-role fighter — that it be ours,” the U.S. official said.

“We think that it’s also in Iraq’s interest to buy their weapons from as few suppliers as possible, because you’re talking about logistics, maintenance, interoperability.”

The U.S. Congress has already been told of potential arms sales to Iraq worth some $9 billion, including General Dynamics Corp’s (GD.N) M1A1 tank, armed helicopters from either Boeing Co (BA.N) or Textron Inc, and Lockheed’s C-130J cargo plane.

The other side of this is whether it will upset the balance and cause Iraq’s neighbors to feel threatened. 

The Iraqis argue that, despite U.S. wariness about allowing Baghdad offensive capabilities, the country needs to be able to deter an attack from outside.

But given the fractious nature of Iraqi politics, split mainly between the majority Shiites, their putative allies, the Kurds and the minority Sunnis, internal power struggles remain the major security problem.

Kurdish leaders warned recently that the sale of advanced weapons systems, such as F-16s, to Baghdad must include guarantees they wouldn’t be used against the Kurds’ semi-autonomous enclave in northeastern Iraq.

Memories of Saddam’s genocidal aerial poison gas attacks on rebellious Kurds in the 1980s in which tens of thousands of people, mostly civilians, perished, are seared into the cultural psyche of Iraq’s Kurds.

Even so, under a $2.4 billion deal Iraq is slated to get 24 Bell Armed 407 helicopters or 24 Boeing AH-6 Apache gunships, along with Hellfire missiles, engines and rocket launchers.

Health Care Reform (Part III): HR 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, The Cost

by Mike

So far we have heard much to do about the expensive nature of the Democratic proposed heath care bill (aka HR 3200 or America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) and its problems. Well now, it is time to dig into the numbers behind those costs and the potential problems is could pose.

Unbeknown to most Americans one of the key features of this proposal is expansion of that dirty eight letter word, Medicare. Americans know this system is broke, but do they actually know how bad is the question? Here are numbers on the Medicaid system as provided by Office of the Actuary, Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services, Department of Health and Human Services. This is before the proposed expansion of the present system.

According to the Actuary’s financial report which was produced in 2007, Federal and State Medicaid expenditures over a 10 year period are expected to increase at an astounding 7.9% per year, outlays in 2007 were $333.2 billion (Federal and State) and are expected to rise to $673.7 billion (Federal and State) by 2017. Enrollment is expected to rise from 50.1 million in 2008 to 55.1 million in 2017 or an annual increase of 1.2%. As of 2007, $6,664 were spent on on each enrollee, in 2017 this will increase to $12,227/enrollee.

Wonder why the States have been making such a case about Medicaid spending? Here are the projections of Federal versus State share of Medicaid spending pre-expansion of HR 3200.

A CBO analysis, released in March of this year, confirms the CMMS projections and are worse. The CBO Medicaid Baseline shows that from 2009 the expected number of Medicaid recipients will rise from an average monthly enrollment of 54.9 million to 59 million in 2017 and goes as high as 60.8 million enrollees in 2019.

Just the Federal Medicaid expenditures will increase from $255.4 billion in 2009 to $370 billion in 2017 and increase even further to $426.1 billion in 2019. (It is important to remember this estimate does not include state expenditures or the expansion of the Medicaid system through HR 3200.) Including state expenditures on Medicaid, total amount of spending would be around $1.8 trillion over a ten year period (2009-2019).

According to the CBO analysis of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, 11 million additional persons will be added to the Medicaid rolls. (Page 17 of 18) This will cause an additional $438 billion dollars to be added to “just” the Federal expenditures for Medicaid over a 10 year period (Page 18 of 18). Minus the inclusion of state expenditures, as a result of HR 3200, on Medicaid you are looking at $2.2 trillion over a ten year period just on Medicaid alone.

Taking into account the average percentage of state expenditures (About 40% to the 60% provided by the Federal government.) required from the additional spending of HR 3200, the existing spending both Federal and State pre health care bill, and the additional costs of Federal spending as a result of the health care bill, total spending on Medicaid “ALONE” could be as high $2.4 trillion over a 10 year period.

This is an additional $240 billion in Medicaid expenditures added to government spending on health care per year.

A counter argument might be that HR 3200 will allow those already on Medicaid to shift to the public insurance option, aka Government sponsored health insurance. Think again. From the CBO. (Page 9 of 18)

In sum, because of the specific features of the proposal, the number of people who might leave private coverage for Medicaid would be relatively small, and the number of people who would newly enroll in Medicaid would be relatively large—so together, those features of the proposal would reduce the expected rate of crowd-out.

Not one mention about reduction in the number of people currently enrolled in Medicaid, just an increase to its rolls.

From the CBO study of July 17th on the deficit effects of HR 3200, AMERICA’S AFFORDABLE HEALTH CHOICES ACT OF 2009.

(The total spending of $1 trillion over a ten year period does include the $438 billion for Medicaid already covered.)

The deficit from this bill as can bee seen is $239 billion over a ten year period. Ironically though this savings is a result of taxes and some reforms to Medicare, not Medicaid.

According to CBO’s and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period. That estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill’s insurance coverage provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions that JCT estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over those 10 years.

Adding up all of the numbers presented here,that is Medicaid spending and the proposed health care reform bill, we are looking at a net increase of approximately $3.4 $2.9 trillion over a ten year period, or $340 $290 billion per year (These numbers were altered due to the fact that the $438 billion in spending from HR 3200 was considered in the calculation twice.), for “reforming” health care. How this translates to yearly deficits is unknown. Seemingly, no data has been compiled on on this topic.

Conclusion: Already a trend for exaggerating or undercutting numbers and only being able to identify peripheral problems with health care, not critical ones, is easily perceptible. Still, it is still beyond my reason as to why Democrats in the House would be expanding a program like Medicaid that is undeniably broken and headed for disaster.

While there are minimal savings, when realistically cost adjusted for the amount of outlays, the amount is nearly a zero sum. Obviously to a sound mind, the expensive nature of this proposed program will result in an increase of taxes on the federal and state levels for most, if not all, income quintiles, not just the top 2-5% of earners. Remember, nothing is free as much as you and I would love to believe it.

All things considered, the questions still remain, “How is this “reform, “cost-control,” and are our legislators this naieve and inept?” “Or are they just this power hungry?”

Please note: I am not a health care or statistical analysis expert, but I can read, write, add, subtract, and sometimes multiply and divide. All of the results here are from statistical information obtained from official government sources, except for one. If you have any qualms or concerns please post a question in the comment box and we will answer them as best we can. Thank you, and as always I hope this was helpful.

Reset with Russia, Biden style

by Jason

If only this thing came with instructions.

This can’t be good for an administration geared solely for international approval rather than leadership and promoting American power and influence. Biden probably overheard this while he was walking around the White House and repeated it during an interview. In short, Biden revealed that the Obama administration believes that Russia’s economic woes will force them to fall in line with the Obama administration’s wishes. Instead of cooperating with North Korea and Iran’s nuclear development, Russia may now see them as an economic threat and back off supporting them. Russia’s domestic agenda has taken precedent over the international one and Biden believes the Obama administration should use that to their advantage. 

These remarks are certainly in marked contrast to earlier remarks from President Obama and Sec. Clinton. Then again, I suppose this could be a truthful assessment, shrewd and pointed, but factual nonetheless. At any rate, expect Russia to sulk and show their defiance to prepare any loss of face that may be perceived from Biden’s comments. We’ll be resetting the reset shortly. 

Washington Post | US Vice President Biden hits nerve in Russia

MOSCOW — An interview U.S. Vice President Joe Biden gave to an American newspaper was front-page news Monday in Moscow, where his characterization of Russia as a weakened nation hit a raw nerve.

Biden said Russia’s economic difficulties are likely to make the Kremlin more willing to cooperate with the United States on a range of national security issues.

“I think we vastly underestimate the hand that we hold,” he said in an interview to The Wall Street Journal published Saturday.

Biden’s comments appeared to catch the Kremlin by surprise, coming less than three weeks after President Barack Obama said on a visit to Moscow that the U.S. wants to see a “strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia.”

“It raises the question: Who is shaping U.S. foreign policy? The president or members of his team, even the most respected ones?” said Kremlin foreign policy adviser Sergei Prikhodko.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Monday downplayed suggestions that Biden was setting a different U.S. policy from that laid out by the president.

When asked whether Obama thought Biden had gone too far in his remarks, Gibbs said the president stated his views on Russia during his recent visit and the vice president agrees with those views.

Gibbs said both leaders believe Russia will do its part to improve relations with the U.S.

Most Russian newspapers put Biden’s interview on their front pages Monday, with headlines casting doubt on Washington’s commitment to forge a more constructive relationship with Moscow.

“Joe Biden unexpectedly returned to the rhetoric of the previous Bush administration,” the newspaper Kommersant wrote.

Moskovsky Komsomolets said Biden, with his “boorish openness,” showed what the Obama administration really thinks about Russia. “We should respond to the Yankees in the same way,” the newspaper wrote. “Any other language, unfortunately or fortunately, they do not understand.”

I would just like to add to our Russian friends that not everyone in America considers themselves “Yankees.” Repairing relations between our two countries would be infinitely easier if they would stop calling roughly one third of the country ugly and nasty names such as, Yankee.

Middle Eastern Schizophrenia: A look into inconsistencies and failure

by Jason

Are you sure the U.S. and Israel really caused this?

If there were such a thing as a personality of the Middle East it would be described as schizophrenic and inconsistent. Nowhere is this clearer than how the U.S. is perceived and judged. Too many, it is seen as a vast imperialist power hell bent on colonizing the Middle East and defiling Islam. Radical leaders, past and present, paint the U.S. as the principle adversary and the focus of Muslim rage. Ayatollah Khomeini was a central figure in this and the growing march of Islam against the West. It was he who dubbed the United States, “Great Satan” and Israel, “Little Satan.” All his efforts, of course, took place within the context of the Iranian revolution as he was setting himself up as a true Islamic revolutionary leader. During which he churned out low rate propaganda, fiery sermons, and wild tales of American conspiracy, brutal acts against Muslims and disgracing Islam. For example, in 1979 the Great Mosque in Saudi Arabia was seized by rabid Islamic radicals in which they were eventually detained and their leaders executed. Khomeini, however, spread the rumor that it was actually U.S. troops who had led the attacks and killed those who sought to purify Islam against Western defilement. Protests in countries erupted throughout the Middle East as American embassies were attacked. In Pakistan two Americans were killed based on the lie.

When the U.S. embassy in Iran was seized in 1979 and American hostages held for 444 days, oddly, it was not because of wild rumors or American aggression. Quite the contrary. The relations were improving with a real chance of reconciliation between the two countries. In fact, the Iranian Prime Minister met with American National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, to discuss American support. That was a gesture too mild and too dangerous for the radicals led by Khomeini. The Islamic followers in Iran seized the embassy and destroyed any chance of meaningful dialogue and secured the Iranian Revolution while creating an eternal enemy played by the U.S. It was an event unique and one in which President Carter failed to grasp or understand. Khomeini increased his rhetoric warning Muslims that the world was under the sphere of America and soon they would colonize the Middle East just as their European cousins once did. “Death to America” became the de facto motto of the country itself and general Middle Eastern sentiment of the day. All engineered off the belief in falsehoods, straw men and the new movement called, Islamism, that swept millions up to its war against the West.

That is but one example of the Muslim world’s fight against the West supposedly in order to preserve Islam and free Muslims from Western enslavement. But the real inconsistencies lies in the Arab world’s marriage to the Soviets during the Cold War and their evolution afterwards.

During their involvement in the Middle East, the Soviet Union wielded power and persecuted tens of millions of Muslims in Central Asia and the Caucus. While doing this, the Soviet Union spread its own borders on an imperialist march past the point of the Czars of Russia. Yet, the Soviet Union did not receive similar treatment from most Muslims. Even in Iran itself, during WWII the British and the Soviets occupied Iran. Afterwards, the British left and the Soviets stayed. They intended to use the country to push further into Muslim lands such as Azerbaijan and Turkey.Thanks largely to the U.S. that never happened and the Soviets were forced to abandon Iran. The Soviets started a new game further west in Egypt by signing the Russian-Egypt arms agreement. Other countries followed suit under the belief that since it wasn’t Western intrusion then it must not be imperialism. That belief turned out to be wrong. Within a very short time, the Soviets established quick control over nearly all its satellite states in Arab countries. Given their way, the Middle East would have followed the path of Eastern Europe under Soviet rule. However, the Americans countered their every move during the Cold War.

Here are just a few examples of Soviet “support” for their Arab protectorates

• Despite heavy investments, they barely lifted a finger to save their Muslim satellite countries from a humiliating defeat in the Arab-Israel War of 1967.
• They forced unequal treaties with Arab countries. In part, established bases on Muslim soil in which no Muslim could enter.
• When Egypt’s leader Anwar Sadat had enough he ordered Soviets out of the country and began reaching out to the U.S. and sending peace feelers to Israel. However, this did not hurt the image of the Soviets and did nothing to increase the image of the U.S.
• The Soviets were never challenged or confronted for their brutal repression of Islam in Central Asia. The Soviets allowed only 200 state licensed mosque to serve the needs of over 50 million Muslims.
• America received no real boost in popularity in its efforts to save Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Albania. Conversely, the Chinese are not condemned for their history of slaughtering and mistreating their Muslim population.

The strongest illustration of Muslim schizophrenia is the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It would be hard to find a better example of unwarranted aggression and imperialist motives. Yet, aside from a small number of defenders of Islam, the reaction from the greater Islamic world was pathetically small.

• The U.N. could not even include the word “aggression” in the resolution condemning the Soviet invasion from lack of support.
• Syria and Algeria abstained
• South Yemen voted against the resolution
• Libya was absent
• The PLO held rallies and made speeches supporting the Soviets
• The Organization of the Islamic Conference could not come to an agreement. Often because the member states refused to vote or boycotted the meetings outright. Libya’s delegate used the time to blame a America.

It was the U.S. that organized and heavily funded — along with Egypt and Saudi support — the defense of Afghanistan against Soviet aggression. Nevertheless, Soviet imperialism and aggression was often so overlooked and enjoyed enthusiastic support in almost all of the Arab world, only reveals their dubious nature and wide inconsistencies.

Obviously, Arabs had no real love affair for the Russians and embraced them eagerly as away to standup to the West. The fact that the West, led solely by America, was able to respond more effectively and eventually outlast the alliance reinforced their hate and disgust with America. The record of American policy in the Middle East is remarkably successful compared to other parts of the world. There is no Vietnam, Cambodia, Angola, Sudan, Nicaragua or regions like Southeast Asia and southern Africa. U.S. economic and political influence eliminated wars and competing security pacts from launching preemptive strikes against another. It prevented a regional power from establishing monopolistic power in the Middle East. The two exceptions to that record was the Arab decision to attack Israel and U.S intervention in the Gulf War of 1991. As for the latter, it was the U.S. that came to the aid of Muslims from inter-Arab aggression.

When the U.S. can be seen as a partner for stability and prosperity and not an invading force against Islam, Muslim countries can began the long and uncomfortable stare at their own world wrecked with failure, incompetence, greed and corruption. Secondly, Israel’s strength is not their threat. A weak Israel or an Israel in constant war will post a constant danger and instability in the Middle East. An event that could empower regional powers to create bigger wars but a strong Israel at peace with its neighbor buys time for political and economical change and social stability.

The Middle East has remained agile in placing their failures on others. When the European powers receded, their scorn was placed squarely on the U.S. But even then it often bounced from one issue to the next and then to specific causes: economic exploitation, supporting corrupt tyrants, supporting Israel and more and more of other causes. The list of grievances can be as long as wished. The problem lies within the Middle Eastern world itself. Its own schizophrenic behavior and inconsistencies in how it has chosen to operate for  a century. And how reluctant they have been to embrace their own failures and shortcomings as a people. Instead, choosing to create distractions, enemies, and models for corruption and enslavement along the way. The very thing they say they are all fighting against.

Health Care Reform (Part II): H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009

by Mike

Presenting the Democratic health care plan in summary form and in their words. If you would like to read the 1000+ page bill here is the link, via Open Congress.

There are 6 areas of concentration within HR 3200. They are,

• COVERAGE AND CHOICE

• AFFORDABILITY

• SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

• CONTROLLING COSTS

• PREVENTION AND WELLNESS

• WORKFORCE INVESTMENTS

Summary:

In the opening of the bill’s summary it is stated, “The bill builds on what works in today’s health care system and fixes the parts that are broken.” The only criticism I will mention is, “hardly.”

Coverage and Choice-

What the plan is attempting to do here is create a health care Exchange with which small businesses and private citizens can shop government sponsored and private insurers. Also there is mention of the government run health care option which is supposed to “create” competition. The next area of interest is “market reforms. What this means is “limits the ability of insurance companies to charge higher rates due to health status, gender, or other factors.” However, the premiums can still be raised or lowered according to “age (no more than 2:1), geography and family size.” Finally there is the obligatory Advisory Committee which will setup a criteria for basic benefit packages, eventually which will become the minimum standard accepted.

Affordability-

Providing affordability vouchers to people just above the eligibility for Medicaid and the value of these vouchers will decline as you ascend up the pay-scale. Capping out-of-pocket expenses to prevent bankruptcies from medical expenses. Increasing availability to Medicaid benefits to those at or below 133% of the poverty line. Meaning a single person with an income of roughly $13,000/year would be eligible for “expanded and improved” Medicaid. Improving and expanding the Medicaid system by allowing those with disabilities and Seniors to benefit from certain provisions and addressing “future fiscal challenges by improving payment accuracy, encouraging delivery system reforms and extending solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund.“

Shared Responsibility-

Penalizing individuals 2.5% of modified adjusted gross income above a certain level, except in cases of hardship, if they chose not to carry health insurance. (The specific level of income is not mentioned.) Expanding employer based coverage by the business “providing health insurance coverage for their workers or contributing funds on their behalf.” Businesses whose payroll do not exceed $250,000/year will be exempt from the employer responsibility requirement. Then there is mention of a 2-4% payroll penalty on businesses. I am not sure if this penalty is levied if the employer chooses not participate in providing workers with employer based benefits or not, but that seems to be the implication. And finally government responsibility to provided affordable health insurance to every American. However, there is no mention of penalties or controls to keep the government running their part of the health care insurance efficiently.

These next two are fairly self-explanatory. These are Democratic words copy and pasted off of the summary.

Prevention and Wellness-

• Expansion of Community Health Centers;
• Prohibition of cost-sharing for preventive services;
• Creation of community-based programs to deliver prevention and wellness services;
• A focus on community-based programs and new data collection efforts to better identify and address racial, ethnic, regional and other health disparities;
• Funds to strengthen state, local, tribal and territorial public health departments and programs.

Work Force Investments-

• Increased funding for the National Health Service Corp;
• More training of primary care doctors and an expansion of the pipeline of individuals going into health professions, including primary care, nursing and public health;
• Greater support for workforce diversity;
• Expansion of scholarships and loans for individuals in needed professions and shortage areas;
• Encouragement of training of primary care physicians by taking steps to increase physician training outside the hospital, where most primary care is delivered, and redistributes unfilled graduate medical education residency slots for purposes of training more primary care physicians.

Controlling Costs-

In this section of the plan costs will apparently be lowered through initiatives such as introducing “major delivery system reform in Medicare to reward efficient provision of health care, rolling out innovative concepts such as accountable care organizations, medical homes, and bundling of acute and post-acute provider payments.” “Innovation and delivery reform through the public health insurance option.” Eliminating over-payments to Medicare Advantage plans and improves payment accuracy for numerous other providers. Preventing waste, fraud and abuse and simplifying the paperwork burden.

There you have it in summary form, in the Democrats words, and easy to understand. This is what it is you can decide for yourself if you care for it or not.

As always, I hope this information is helpful in you decision making process.

Truth and Scholarship in the New Testament Gospels

by Jason

Dr. William Lane Craig delves into Historical Jesus and the evidence for His existence

Reasonable Faith | Rediscovering the Historical Jesus: The Evidence for Jesus

Last time we saw that the New Testament documents are the most important historical sources for Jesus of Nazareth. The so-called apocryphal gospels are forgeries which came much later and are for the most part elaborations of the four New Testament gospels.

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t sources outside the Bible which refer to Jesus. There are. He’s referred to in pagan, Jewish, and Christian writings outside the New Testament. The Jewish historian Josephus is especially interesting. In the pages of his works you can read about New Testament people like the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, King Herod, John the Baptist, even Jesus himself and his brother James. There have also been interesting archaeological discoveries as well bearing on the gospels. For example, in 1961 the first archaeological evidence concerning Pilate was unearthed in the town of Caesarea; it was an inscription of a dedication bearing Pilate’s name and title. Even more recently, in 1990 the actual tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided over Jesus’s trial, was discovered south of Jerusalem. Indeed, the tomb beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem is in all probability the tomb in which Jesus himself was laid by Joseph of Arimathea following the crucifixion. According to Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University,

Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death.1
Still, if we want any details about Jesus’s life and teachings, we must turn to the New Testament. Extra-biblical sources confirm what we read in the gospels, but they don’t really tell us anything new. The question then must be: how historically reliable are the New Testament documents?

Burden of Proof

Here we confront the very crucial question of the burden of proof. Should we assume that the gospels are reliable unless they are proven to be unreliable? Or should we assume the gospels are unreliable unless they are proven to be reliable? Are they innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent? Sceptical scholars almost always assume that the gospels are guilty until proven innocent, that is, they assume that the gospels are unreliable unless and until they are proven to be correct concerning some particular fact. I’m not exaggerating here: this really is the procedure of sceptical critics.

But I want to list five reasons why I think we ought to assume that the gospels are reliable until proven wrong:

1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.

2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary “urban legends.” Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the “vanishing hitchhiker” rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.

3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.

4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.

5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.

Read the rest, here. 

See why William Lane Craig is feared among atheist here and here. 

The West Point Class of ‘76

by Jason

Generals of the 21st Century

A wonderful article has been published in the Wall Street Journal titled, A Class of Generals. In it are the profiles of America’s leading General’s whose sacrifice, brains, guts and glory highlight the strong American tradition of victory and leadership in our armed services. It also brings out the strong bond of military family members and the vocation of military service that is often passed down to sons and daughters. There are some personal stories attached to each of these men. It is well worth the read. Coming from a strong tradition of military service in my own family I can appreciate the thought and message in the article. As long as America’s society can produce outstanding young men and woman, and our politicians have the will to allow our military to be triumphant, we will never have a shortage of these kind of stories or these kind of men. America’s strong military tradition and legacy of selfless service will be secure. It goes without saying that the last eight years proves that beyond a shadow of any doubt. 

The Moderate Voice also took time to acknowledge it. 

The article mentions in passing that Odierno’s son lost his arm in 2004, in a firefight near Baghdad. Later, the article mentions in passing that the daughter of Gen. Keith Walker was killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan in 2005.

This kind of tragedy is almost inevitable, given how many senior officers (colonels as well as generals) have children serving in the military, often in front-line combat units. My analyst position in Iraq was previously held by a retired lieutenant colonel whose son was leading an infantry unit just over the wall in Baghdad. The deputy commander of my task force in Iraq was an active-duty lieutenant colonel with a son in Iraq. One of my colleagues was a retired NCO who survived more than one IED blast and had a son in Iraq.

Wall Street Journal | A Class of Generals

The class of 1976—who left West Point at a low point for both the Army and its famed training ground—has produced a striking number of generals now influencing the shape of the U.S. military. All told, at least 33 active and retired generals, now all in their mid-50s, were among its 855 graduating members. Gen. McChrystal’s deputy in Kabul, Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, was a classmate, as was the officer leading U.S. efforts to train the Iraqi army, Lt. Gen. Frank Helmick. Retired Lt. Gen. Dave Barno, who spent 19 months as the top commander in Afghanistan, was also West Point ’76.

“It’s really sort of unprecedented,” says Stephen Grove, a civilian who recently retired after 30 years as West Point’s official historian. “The class of 1915 is known as ‘the class the stars fell on’ because of graduates like Omar Bradley and Dwight Eisenhower. But you could argue that the class of 1976 is becoming just as influential.”

Health Care Reform (Part I): Identifying the Problems

by Mike

The first step in order to understand the health care debate is to the correctly identify the honest problems we are facing within America’s health care system.

Right now the main focus of the debate is lowering medical costs and giving everyone the option for health care insurance, be it a private or government run option.

However, this structure of the debate tackles the secondary problems, this does nothing to correct the systemic flaws within American health care.

Take for instance this 2006 study done by the RAND corporation. Their findings are quite astounding and might just surprise people not involved in the medical industry.

How did the do it?

The Community Quality Index Study differed from previous assessments of quality because it was more comprehensive, examined quality across the nation rather than in one geographic area, and included people from diverse socio-economic groups with all types of insurance and a wide range of conditions. Th e research team used random telephone surveys to interview more than 13,000 adults in 12 metropolitan areas regarding their health care experiences (see Figure 1). About 6,700 individuals provided written consent for researchers to review their medical records and use the information to evaluate performance on 439 clinical indicators of quality for 30 acute and chronic conditions, such as diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure, pneumonia, and heart disease, and for related preventive care.

Researchers then developed a quality care indicator based on leading causes of death, disability, and reasons people seek medical treatment.

What did they find?

RAND found that quality varied substantially across conditions, quality varied across communities for the same condition, to no single community had consistently the highest or lowest performance. But the most important facet was that “everyone is at risk for poor care.”

Regardless of race, creed, color, socio-economic background, privately insured, or government insured, every single American receives about 50% of the recommended health care they require.

Race, gender, or financial status makes only a small diff erence in the likelihood of receiving recommended care. For example, women were more likely to receive recommended preventive care, but men receive better-quality care for acute conditions. Previous studies have demonstrated disparities in care for blacks associated with invasive and expensive procedures, such as coronary-artery bypass graft surgery. However,on the broad RAND measures, which assessed more routine care, blacks were slightly more likely than whites or Hispanics to receive recommended care for chronic conditions, whereas Hispanics were more likely to receive recommended screening.

On the types of health care payment systems.

But these variations pale in comparison with the gap between the care that each patient receives and the recommended care that he or she should receive. For example, individuals who had no health insurance received about 54 percent of recommended care, compared with 55 percent for those on Medicaid and in managed care, 57 percent for Medicare enrollees, and 54 percent for those enrolled in private non–managed care plans and for individuals without insurance.

Here is an illustration highlighting their findings.

In addition their research indicates a problem which is even more troublesome.

The study reveals substantial gaps between what clinicians know works and the care actually provided. These deficits persist despite initiatives by both the federal government and private health care delivery systems to improve care.

As you can see, all Americans, regardless of their background or whether they have insurance or not, are receiving care that is equivalent to half of what they actually require. Couple this with failing policies being implemented by the government and the private sector and you are left with a situation that is worse than what you started out with.

Moreover, none of what is being argued about is health care reform, it is about health care insurance. This is a pointless endeavor unless first and foremost, amicable changes are made so that patients can receive the best care their doctors can deliver. Policy makers are once again eschewing from amending critical problems and are deferring to solving only ancillary concerns.

Update: The Mayo Clinic is actually echoing some of the same sentiments expressed in the RAND study, that is promoting results and patient focus.

Health Care Reform Series

by Mike

Health care reform-as a domestic social issue-is going to be one of the defining moments for the Obama administration. Politically its failure could spell disastrous consequences for the administration as well as the Democrats in general.

With a more than healthy majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, any initiative should sail through with no potholes. Painting the GOP as the party of “No,” will not work for much longer, not that it really ever has.

Nevertheless, the political ramifications for John Q public are less important. As a middle class American, caught dead smack in the middle of a vicious recession, the only worry is day-to-day living, individual health, and the health of loved ones. This is why honest information, not political agendas and talking points, on health care reform are SO important.

Over the next few days I will run a series of health care reform related posts concentrating on the Obama/Democrat health care plan, its costs, and possible alternatives.

You can consider 46 Million and 8.2 Million Uninsured Americans Myths Busted as the opening volley.

I hope this information will help.