House votes to deny Obama more borrowing authority

The borrowing refers to the need to yet again raise our debt ceiling and allow politicians the ability to spend more by borrowing more.  I, unlike the article’s author, used the term “politicians” rather than just Obama when referring to the one(s) doing the borrowing.  This story is should be primer on how the political class (both right and left and middle) play the game to ensure that they stay in power while seeming to play to their bases.

View from the right:

“The Republican-led House began its first full legislative day of the New Year by reigniting one of last year’s pivotal partisan fights – the debt ceiling…The House voted largely along party lines Wednesday to deny President Obama an increase in new borrowing.”

Doesn’t that sound like what conservatives want?  This will force Obama to cut spending right?  Not so fast buddy.

View from the left:

“Because the measure is expected to stall in the Senate, which Democrats control, and is opposed by Obama, it is unlikely to prevent the $1.2 trillion debt ceiling increase.”

View from the masses:

• The right can campaign that they consistently voted against Obama and raising the debt ceiling.
• The left can campaign that they held ground against the right and ensured that the federal government was not shut down.
• Democrats and Republicans both get to continue spending like crazy.
• We foot the bill
• We continue to get screwed

Like money through the printing press these are the days of our debts…

1. You’ll hear that payroll increased by 120,000 jobs, but probably will not be told that most of those jobs are temporary, holiday seasonal positions which should make for some somber January 2012 numbers.
2. You’ll not likely hear that a majority of the drop in the jobless number is because 315,000 of our fellow citizens have stopped looking for jobs.  Once they stopped looking they are no longer considered in the jobless numbers.  At this rate of citizens giving up we should be at “full employment” by November 2012.
3. The real unemployment rate which is never reported and includes those who are no longer seeking employment and those who are underemployed is at a dismal 15.6 percent.

Even an article by Obama’s MSNBC couldn’t avoid the less-than-stellar jobless news in their story,

“When the unemployment rate declines, we want to see both employment and participation increase as discouraged workers return to the labor force. Today, we got the former, but not the latter, making the 0.4 percent drop look a bit suspect,” Neil Dutta, US economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, told clients. “We would not be surprised to see the unemployment rate give back some of its decline in the coming month(s).”

It is a sad sad day when the Obama media can no longer cover for him.  Perhaps he should go on a 17 DAY VACATION TO HAWAII!  All that fundraising he has been doing this year has been tiring.  Can you imagine how tired he’d be if he actually was actually participating in governance?

It tugs at your heart to think that 700,000 children are being born each year with mercury in their blood caused by ”threatening” levels of the pollutant in our waters.  We are encouraged by the Network to thank Pennsylvania’s Senator Robert Casey for his efforts to support EPA’s efforts to restrict emissions from coal-fired power plants.  Pastor Tracey, an evangelical pastor and mom, provides the voice to the ad and if you go to their website you can see her on video.  I would hate to be labeled as a person who is in favor of increased mercury poisoning of unborn children, but I have some problems with Pastor Tracey’s assertions.

First of all I have worked in the environmental field for nearly three decades and have never heard the term “threatening levels” used to describe a pollutant in water.  Use of non-technical, wiggly, unscientific terms to push an agenda makes me very skeptical of the position being forwarded.  I want to see data and hoped to find it at their website.  No luck, but there is a 45 minute podcast by a Dr. Landrigan about mercury and the unborn.  I actually started to listen to the audio, but once the lengthy introduction was over and Dr. Landrigan came on the sound quality was very poor so I quit.  The title of the audio was Mercury and the Unborn and I don’t think there is a lot of doubt that mercury is bad for the unborn and the born.  There is just a lot of information left out:

1. What is the mercury level in children?
2. The statistic is that 700,000 children are born with harmful levels of mercury in their blood.  I understand that is a statistic, but how many children are tested for mercury?  It’s been a while since my children are born, but I don’t remember any tests for mercury.  WHERE DOES THAT NUMBER COME FROM?  Their website states “One in six babies, over 700,000 each year, are born with harmful levels of mercury in their blood.”  It does not use the phrase “an estimated” in the statement which I would expect since every baby is certainly not tested.
3. Assuming the above statistic is correct, what has been the trend in mercury levels in children?  Are more children being born with mercury in their blood today than five years ago, ten years ago, twenty years ago?  The ad gives a presumption that this is an emerging crisis and that Robert Casey has taken steps to resolve it.
4. The ad purports a direct connection between coal-fired power plants and mercury in children’s blood.  Provide the peer-reviewed, published paper that make the connection in a scientific manner rather than unverified statements produced by an advertising firm. 
5. What are the trends in air quality as it relates to mercury levels?  Has mercury been increasing over the last 50 years?  It has been my experience that air quality has been at historically good levels and getting better all of the time. 
6. Is there any connection between the amount of mercury in the environment and China?  There are reports that the Chinese complete two power plants every week and now use more coal than the U.S., Great Britain, and Japan combined.
7. Please explain the term “threatening levels” and where it is defined.  Are there “threatening levels” for other pollutants?  I would expect that there is one for lead? Zinc? Arsenic? Carbon Dioxide?

Two other things really bother me about this ad and the organization.  The Evangelical Environmental Network is pushing Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) to support EPA’s efforts to help an estimated 700,000 babies yet they ignore the estimated 1,370,000 unborn babies that are aborted each year.  It would seem that his time would be better spent saving those babies who die rather than spend time on the estimated 700,000 who are born with potential health hazards.  I think this is called triage in the medical field…you spend the time on those that are dying and can be saved first.

The other thing that is glaringly missing is what I would call the forest.  Pastor Tracey please explain what happens to the health of the estimated 4,000,000 babies born each year (boosts to 4,370,000 if Casey decides to save them) when hospitals no longer have access to inexpensive, reliable energy.  Take the time, Pastor Tracey, to read about the life expectancy of American children circa 1850 or look at any third-world country today.  Is that what you are looking for?  Would your rather live and raise the children that you display in your videos in the 1950s with polio, measles, and small pox threats?  How about during the killer plague years?  I suspect not as I suspect that the Evangelical Environmental Network is another left-wing group playing on our fears. 

History is full of examples of poorly thought out yet popular efforts to improve the environment.  Consider Rachel Carson’s successful efforts to ban DDT.  She was successful and since malaria-ridden countries no longer can have the benefit of the effective mosquito control chemical an estimated one million people have died unnecessarily every year.  Many experts have shown that Carson’s science was flawed and DDT is harmless and 40 million people have died.  By the way while doing some research for this post I ran accross an article dated today with this headline;

NASA Satellite Confirms Sharp Decline in Pollution From U.S. Coal Power Plants

There are so many groups trying to save a tree without consideration of the forest.   Perhaps it would make me more comfortable with these kind of groups if they provided a list of their funders on their websites.  Not every funder, but those who give more than say $10,000. 

Can we afford the tree at the cost of the forest?

A front page story in my local paper headlined that “Ex-N.J. governor leaves MF Global” which probably doesn’t say too much to entice you to read the story.  This AP story is about Democrat ex-governor Jon Corzine who was defeated by Republican Chris Christie in the heavily Democrat state of New Jersey.  That has nothing to do with the story although you would have had to read through to the seventeenth paragraph (and after the article was “continued on A6″) to find out that Corzine is a Democrat.  Again, being a Democrat is not all that germane to the story about the collapse of Corzine’s MF Global and the missing 6oo million dollars, but had it been a Republican the headline probably would have been more like this,

Ex-N.J. DEMOCRAT governor is forced to resign from MF Global, $600 million missing

That would clearly be a better and more accurate headline, but since he was a Democrat that part was pushed later.  There were

also a number of other pertinent facts mysteriously left out of the AP story that were widely reported by other news organizations…

“MF Global recently made a bond sale with an unusual clause, saying the interest rate on the bonds would rise 1 percent if Corzine ended up being appointed to a post in the Obama administration. There has been speculation that he could be in line for Treasury secretary if the president is reelected.”

As it turns out Mr. Corzine is available unless he goes to jail unless he choses to use his “get out of jail free” card…

“The bankrupt financial company MF Global, now under federal investigation for possibly misusing clients’ money, is one of the top sources of contributions for President Obama’s reelection, complicating the campaign’s effort to turn public anger at Wall Street into a political advantage.  Employees of the company have given $108,650 to Obama’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, according to federal records. MF Global’s chairman and chief executive, former New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, has raised at least $500,000 for the campaign and the DNC as a “bundler,” or volunteer fundraiser.”

These were rather routine facts that almost all articles that I have read on the subject have mentioned.  Why didn’t the AP?  You have got to love the term “bundler” as this may be how Barack Obama goes down in history.  The amount of money (i.e. our tax dollars) he has given to his “bundlers” is astounding.  Pay to play…Chicago style.  Perhaps the AP can do a story about bundlers and how they reap what they sow from the Obama Administration.  They may actually do such a thing if they can also point to George Bush doing the same/similar thing even if they have to distort the truth.

Another AP story in today’s paper noted that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ husband has written a book about her and the tragedy.  First off why does everyone feel like they need to write a book?  The AP listed some of the books’ highlights with one being that Giffords was disappointed that Sarah Palin did not call since here web site “targeted” Giffords district,

“Kelly [Giffords' husband] thought Sarah Palin might call to offer condolences because of a map the former Alaskan governor had posted with crosshairs, but Palin never did.”

Again this is the Democrat narrative that Palin somehow was culpable because some fruitcake snapped and shot Giffords and many others.  That narrative was disproved almost as long ago as the “Gore won Florida” myth yet it was apparently mentioned in the book and of course repeated by the AP.  

Here are some stories that I would like the AP to delve deeply into:

1. I mentioned the “bundler” issue above.  It doesn’t matter to me if they go after Republicans too, but this “bundler” thing sounds a whole lot like “lobbying” in return for favors.  Each contribution is smaller, but when bundled it is a nice chunk of money that probably has strings.
2. Obamacare one year later…its costs…its ups…its downs…how much have we learned about what’s in it now that it is passed (maybe Nancy Pelosi know now too)
3. Solyndra – the whole story.
4. Jon Corzine – what did he know and when did he know it.
5. Fast and Furious – how can the media ignore this MAJOR scandal of the Obama Administration where at least one U.S. Border Agent was killed with weapons that the Obama Justice Department allowed to go across the Mexican border?  Was stimulus money used to buy guns and send them to Mexican drug cartels.
6. Why did Obama want to kill Quaddafi (Libya) and not Assad (Syria). 
7. How did Obama send troops into a sovereign country (Pakistan) to carry out an operation (killing bin Laden)?  What will the long-term implications be for Pakistan’s cooperation in the future?  It actually probably could be worse.
8. Now that we’ve killed Quaddafi why do Libyans still hate us?
9. An in-depth look at the anti-Semetic undercurrents in the Occupy Wall Street movement. 
10. The Obama-Rezko connection. 

So I had some fun trying to find a different name for the AP while allowing them to keep the “AP.”

• Adulterated Press
• Associated PublicRelations (it’s not APR if you jam them together)
• Asinine Press
• Asinine Progressives
• Absolute Progressives
• Absent Proof
• Adoring Press

I look forward to any of your ideas…

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton (Democrat)

I happened to catch some of Sean Hannity’s radio show this afternoon.  He had as a guest long-time Democrat strategist and spokesman Lanny Davis.  Sean had devilish intentions of busting the chops of Davis about President Obama’s poll numbers and suggesting that just about any Republican candidate could win in 2012.  Davis differed on that and suggested that only Romney had the right stuff to challenge Obama (I have to admit to being leery about the Democrat’s consistent position, almost a longing, to have Romney be the Republican nominee).

Davis went on to pontificate about how well Obama was doing with his recent successes killing first Osama bin Laden (assassinated in another country without their permission), Anwar al-Awlaki (an American citizen), and now complicit in the murder of Muammar Qaddafi (a head of a sovereign country).  Davis’ bragging tone struck me as funny (odd not humorous) much as the clucking of Hilary Clinton about the death of Qaddafi who was captured alive, brutally beaten, then murdered without any kind of a trial.  Don’t get me wrong, these were all bad men and deserved their fates, but you have to admit that the liberals’ hypocrisy here is SCREAMING to be illustrated.  Some of their positions on life and death don’t seem to jibe;

• One of the basic liberal alters is abortion or the killing of unborn children not-so-cleverly termed “pro-choice.”  So taking a human life is okay right?
• Wait liberals are against corporal punishment.  Just look at the protests outside of prisons when a convicted murderer is up for an appointment to complete their sentence.  Hollyweird stars flood the airwaves defending known criminals not only seeking that their lives be spared, but often campaigning for their release.  So killing babies (unborn) is okay, but not murderers.
• Hey wait a minute again.  Obama just killed the mass murderers bin Laden, al-Awlaki, and Qaddafi.  So perhaps it’s only okay to kill murderers who haven’t been tried in a court of law.  Also they have to be in a foreign land when we kill them.  I think I got it now…sort of.
• I forgot to mention that Reuters reported that Obama has a super secret death panel,

“Somewhere deep in the National Security Council, a death panel is operating without known legal basis, without recognized rules, without clear oversight and without public record or knowledge of its actions.  According to Reuters news agency, a committee composed of midlevel National Security Council staffers is in charge of compiling the “death list” of terrorists to be targeted by the CIA for killing. Their recommendations are sent to a principals committee for approval. The president then has the option of objecting to the names on the list, but if he remains silent, he gives his consent.”  [I believe that is called plausible deniability or maybe allows him to "vote present"]

• This last section is perhaps the most perplexing stance of Obama liberals.  It doesn’t deal with death directly, but touches on bad men like Obama had killed recently.   If say you happened to capture one of these fine fellows instead of just outright killing them you would not be able to waterboard them, play loud hip hop music, make them stand for long periods, or make them cold.  To summarize…you may drop a 500 pound bomb on them (and any unfortunate sole near them), but not put a rag on their face and dribble water on them.  That’s logical.
• I almost forgot about the Somali pirates that Obama had killed a while back.  Again, bad men though very young men, but no trial and probably not well known enough to be worthy of the super secret Obama death panel.  I seem to remember that they may have been warned before they were all shot in the head.

I know that because Democrats are viewed as weak on defense they love to puff up their chests when they score some victory and we, as compassionate conservatives, should let them have their moment of glory, but I don’t want to.  It seems that unborn (or partially born) babies are okay to kill, bad men okay as long as they are not on American soil (hey wait a minute they were all also Muslim men…food for thought), not okay to kill if they had an American trial.  No ill treatment of enemy combatants.

Perhaps the quintessential example illustrating my frustration is the recent “quotes” from the soon-to-be-released biography on Apple’s Steve Jobs.  Revered by virtually all for his contributions to technology and his leadership to one of America’s most iconic corporations…yes Apple is a CORPORATION!  Here are some of the excerpts attributed to Jobs;

“You’re headed for a one-term presidency,” Jobs told Obama in a meeting last year where he asserted that the White House needed to be more friendly toward business.”

“regulations and unnecessary costs” put the United States at a competitive disadvantage with China, where companies can build factories more cheaply.”

“the education system was “crippled by union work rules”

“Jobs also suggested that Obama meet with several other CEOs who could talk about the needs of innovative firms, but in a characteristic huff, Jobs declared his intention to skip the event when the White House added additional names to the list. Jobs also objected to the menu of that meeting, telling a venture capitalist that shrimp, cod and lentil salad was “far too fancy” and objecting to a chocolate truffle dessert. The White House overruled him, according to the book, citing the president’s fondness for cream pie.”

Jobs refused to attend the meeting, but reportedly talked with Obama over the phone.  Jobs’ comments could just as easily be heard from the mouths of Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or any of the non-RINO Republican candidates.  The comments mirror the frustration held by many free market capitalists as they look at this White House and liberalism in general.  The article ends with a statement that exasperates me…

“Jobs talked with Obama on the phone several times after that, according to Isaacson, and later offered to help with the creation of political ads for Obama’s 2012 campaign.”

How does an industrialist, capitalist, entrepreneur, inventor offer to help perhaps the most anti-industrialist, anti-capitalist, most anti-entrepreneurial president ever?  What is the thought process of such a brilliant mind to support someone with whom he seems to share so little in common regarding the direction America is being pushed? 

Count me as one perplexed conservative.

Two comments; One - where is PETA as this cannot be good treatment for that poor dog; Two - How will the protester "pop" her microwave popcorn?

When is the “Occupy Wall Street” like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill?  I was thinking about the cost to the communities besieged by the Occupy folks and started to think about the similarities to the Gulf Oil spill two years ago.  There are many and there are some things that should be similar and I hope that they come to pass…

Unwanted by those most affected:  There can be no question that the residents of the Gulf did not want the oil spill, but the same cannot be completely said for the Occupy crowd.  Most of these folks have been living in a private park owned by Brookfield Office Management, Zuccotti Park.  I cannot understand how the owners could possible want hundreds of Flea Baggers doing their business all over their property.  There is probably no connection between the $135.8 million loan given to Brookfield Asset Management by Obama and their silence on the destruction of thier park.  Yes the two “Brookfield” companies are related, but some believe that the loan has more to do with the fact that Obama’s White House transition head, John Podesta, has a daughter involved.

Spread of pollution:  Hardly a night went by without stories about the spread of the polluting oil slick as it worked through the Gulf.  We all remember Obama’s photo-op squatting in the sand contemplating the spill.  There has not been much said about the spread of human waste spreading through the park and I want to see Obama squatting by a pile of Flea Bagger waste. 

Taking repsonsibility for the waste:  BP set up a billion dollar relief fund to repay those affected by the spill.  No such luck from the organizers of the Occupy crowd as they want NYC to take care of their waste;

“I think the mayor and some of his ‘clonies’ are trying to use tactics to get us to move out of the park. There’s a lot of stuff we wouldn’t have to clean up if the city provided basic human rights, like a Port-A-Potty. If you would’ve given us a Port-A-Potty 30 days ago, we would’ve maintained it ourselves.”

Man’s unalienable rights to life, liberty, and a port-a-potty!  NYC is taking steps to clean up the potential virulent conditions and the Flea Baggers are not happy.   They are also tightening up the rules for the Occupy Zuccotti Park movement no longer allowing tarps, laying on the ground or benches, sleeping bags, or tents. 

Who pays:  Again, BP took responsibility for the cleanup, but what about the Occupy crowd?  The authorities should be gathering intelligence about who is organizing the protests and they should be compelled to compensate the public for the costs associated for the events.  Hopefully public officials will have the wherewithal and intestinal fortitude to seek payment for their services.  This goes for all of the other cities were “sattelite” protests are cropping up.  By some accounts the Occupy crowd is at least in part funded by organizations supported by one of the ten richest men in America, George Soros.  He can certainly afford to shell out a few hundred million dollars towards the effort and think of the jobs he’ll be creating.

Obama’s response:

Deep Water:  Obama was trying to find out “whose ass to kick“

Occupy Wall Street:  “I think it [the protest] expresses the frustrations that the American people feel.”

Why:  There promises to be numerous lawsuits over who really was at fault for the BP oil spill.  One thing that can be known is that no company wants to have that kind of loss in both product and public perception of their organization.  If you have watched any of the interviews with Flea Baggers their responses range from wanting their own “Woodstock” to someone to pay off their massive school loans to more double rainbows.  Okay I made that last one up.  The BP spill was an accident the Occupy is intentional disruption and destruction of property.

The End:  The effects of the BP oil spill seemed to be severely overstated and much of the damage has been mitigated.  There seems to be no end in sight for the protesters, but the rain has dampened (pun intended) thier spirits and I am thinking that a New York winter will lesson the resolve of all but the professional protesters (i.e. those paid by the unions and Soros…alegedly).

I have to admit that I have enjoyed hearing the young protesters in their own words and am extremely grateful to have been blessed with children who can express a thought.  Of course they have not been educated by Harvard, Columbia, or NYU.

Here are some of Human Events’ more recent teases:

• Politely inquire of liberals just how they’re proposing to “Free Tibet” when China has an estimated 7.5 million soldiers.  Perhaps we can start by making the Dali Lama exit the White House via the back, garbage door – that’ll show them Chinese who is boss.
• Praise the marvelous “inclusivity” and “diversity” of the United Nations Human Rights Council including such standard-bearers like Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and China. 
• Use the words “chairman” instead of “chairperson”, “fireman” instead of “firefighter”. 
• 

  Barack Obama's parents

  Refer to Obama as the 44th white president rather than the “first black president” since his mother was Caucasian and it would be insulting to women if her contribution to her son’s genetic make up were diminished.

• There are a series of “tell a joke” sections.  This is my favorite so far;
  • What’s the difference between a puppy and a liberal?  A puppy stops whining when it grows up.
• Play along with the increasingly common liberal habit of equating Israel with Nazi Germany.  There does seem to be a deep deep and disturbing hatred of Jews and Israel by the extreme left. 

One that I like, that I have not seen in the book is to ask them how they feel about Obama starting a third war in Libya while hd did not end either the war in Iraq or Afghanistan.  If they defend that you can ask why he hates Syrians since they have basically the same situation and we do nothing.  Maybe it is just about Libyans oil.  Using their own arguments and words against them is just so much fun.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Much has been said about the above remarks by Elizabeth Warren, former Obama advisor, Harvard professor, and now candidate for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts.  Many more cogent thinkers that I am have weighed in, but I am struck by the fact that Elizabeth Warren, a 62 year old woman, could be so outrageously misguided.  I feel that I am being kind by alleging that she is misguided because I suspect that she is an Alinsky class warrior doing her best to stir things up and incite a revolution.  She is lying about how things work in America and is playing to the base of our society.  She and her socialist-Soros buddies need to be careful as revolutions have a way of getting away from their purveyors.

• The roads “the rest of us paid for” were also paid for by the factory owner.  Even the 50 percent of Americans that don’t pay income taxes pay gasoline taxes that are supposed to go toward roads.  It is a BOLD LIE to assert that they didn’t pay for the roads.
• the goods “moved” to market on those roads are goods that we need or want.  The factory owner is only successful when he provides goods that we want to buy and we also use those roads to get to the market. 
• The “workers the rest of us paid to educate” had educations that were also paid for by the factory owner and in many public schools we paid far too much for the product.  The factory owner probably had to retrain and/or educate his workers again. 
• As far as being safe in their factories because of the publicly funded police and firefighters, we all pay for that.  These public safety workers do a great job and are generally paid quite well by every taxpayer including the factory owner.
• The armies do protect against marauding bands, but who protects them against socialists, anarchists, and politicians who try to accomplish the same seizures at the point of the guns of the same armies?
• It is nice that she acknowledged that it’s great that the factory turned into something terrific, however, she didn’t seem to mention that in building the factory hundreds of workers were hired who probably paid taxes that paid for roads, police and marauder protection.
• It is also nice that she is willing to let them keep a big chunk of their profits.  After all they had the great idea, were entrepreneurial enough to finance and build it, and maintain the profitability.  In other words they took all of the risks all the while probably paying lots and lots of taxes.
  

  I don't think this is what Warren meant!

• I am not sure what a “social contract” is.  I think it is a Harvard way of stealing others people’s hard-earned money to implement Elizabeth Warren’s social programs.  A “contract” is usually entered into by two parties who agree to the terms of that contract.  Warren’s contract seems just the opposite.
• And finally I love the “pay forward” phrase.  Is that like the government spending more money than it takes in?  Or is that like asking the 50 percent of us who actually pay income taxes to pay more and more and more and more?  I am not a factory owner but as a taxpayer I feel like I am under attack.  I’ve paid taxes for over thirty years (I guess that is paying backwards?), and I am paying now (Is that paying now?) and I anticipate “paying forward” forever.  I was not aware of any legislation that would offer tax relief to me or the factory owner by eliminating our taxes.

I have to believe that she is either really stupid or really evil and either scenario is frightening.  I have a few ideas that I’d like Lizzy to consider:

1. I don’t think it is fair that you make way more money that I do.  I propose that any income (that includes kickbacks, power lunches, dividends, interest, capital gains, etc.) that exceeds my income should be given to the Salvation Army (I trust that they’ll do good with the cash).
2. I’d like to recognize that any additional taxes taken from the factory owners will cause a proportional increase in the cost of their product.  This is a de facto tax increase to me.
3. I do believe that we need to maintain roads and propose that we build no new roads until we have sufficient money to actually maintain the ones we have.  You politicians will just have to cut ribbons for maintained roads.  I know that isn’t as sexy as a new bridge.  Perhaps you can rename old bridges and hold a ceremony.
4. Education is important.  Perhaps you could use your stature as an Obama advisor, Harvard professor and now Senate candidate to convince colleges and universities to lower their prices for tuition, room, and board.  You can start with Harvard (which they estimate to be over $61,000 per year). 
5. Education is important.  Perhaps you can “encourage” failing schools to emulate successful schools thereby living up to the social contract government has to effectively educate the future workers of America.  I am sure the factory owner would appreciate having workers who can read, write, and rithmatic.
6. If you beat Scott Brown I expect you to donate 75 percent of your salary back to the citizens ($50,000 should be more than enough for you to live on), you’ll accept government healthcare, you’ll accept Social Security as your only government provided retirement, you forgo a taxpayer-funded big staff, you’ll fight to close down all of the other benefit programs (we call them perks) elected official have (the gym, the limousines, the lunches, the junkets, etc.). 
7. I’d like to see a “reality” show with you socialists to see how you would survive in a country without factory owners, entrepreneurs, business owners, etc.  We could dump you all in that country, give you windmills and solar panels, sacks of seeds, hand tools, cloth, and some horses and let you go at it.  I hear that Greece is nearly available for immediate occupation.

Survivors – The Greek Experiment!

Image and data from USGS StreamStats

The cause of the flooding was water!  I am not being flip, but differing news reports indicated that between 1.5 and 3 inches of rain fell in one hour.  The picture/graphic on the left is a very rough estimate of the area contributing to the flooded area (AKA the Drainage Area – shown with pink bounded in black) which was calculated to be 4.7 square miles (3008 acres).  I’d like you to notice in the table that nearly 90 percent of the area contributing to the point where the flooding occurred is urban meaning that there are a lot of surfaces that won’t absorb water and generally quickly shed it as runoff; runoff that rapidly drained to the area of the flash flood.  If you assume that there was 1.5 inches of water that fell over the 3008 acres and only 70 percent ran off that would mean that over 85 million gallons* of water was funneled through that narrow area over a very short period of time! 

There seems to be four stages of political ”grief” for these types of natural disasters…

Stage One:  The news media tells us all about the victims and shares their stories.  We all want to know about them, I guess as part of the grieving process even though most of us didn’t know them.  The politicians express their sorrow at the lives lost and may even attend a funeral.  I have no doubt in their sincerity as we all feel the same way.

Oakmont woman identified as victim of flash flood

Stage Two:  The government agencies are quick to determine that the tragedy was not their fault.  If you are jaded you might think they are trying to head the blame game “off at the pass” to deflect attention. 

Storm water system likely overwhelmed in Highland Park flood

Storm water systems not at fault for flooding, official says

Stage Three:  There are the promises that this cannot be allowed to happen again.

City to close Washington Boulevard if needed

It should be noted to those of you not familiar with Pittsburgh traffic patterns that Washington Boulevard is where the flash flooding deaths occurred and is perhaps one of the busiest rush hour areas in the city.  Closing the road would be a MAJOR problem for commuters.  Using the roughest of estimates for that volume of water over an hour would yield nearly 24,ooo gallons/sec of water; any “pipe” would need to be 65 ft. in diameter to carry that much water.  Politicians are so out of touch with reality that they think that they can control nature.  After the devastating flooding seven governors from states along the Missouri River have asked the federal government “to avoid a repeat of this year’s flooding that submerged thousands of acres of farmland, forced residents from their homes and rerouted trains and motorists.” 

Stage Four:  This is where they are going to either hire someone to study the issue or appoint a committee to investigate and make recommendations.  The quintessential political solution would be to do both.

City might hire outside engineer to study flooding

Untold millions of taxpayer dollars will be spent and perhaps a “solution” will be found, but I am still stuck on the simple fact that in a freak act of nature caused 85 million gallons of water (or more) to flow to a narrow area where tragically four people left this Earth too soon. 

* 1.5 inches of rain / 12 in/ft X 3008 acres X 43,560 sq ft/acre x 0.7 X 7.48 gallons/cubic ft. = 85,758,140 gallons.