Throw it against the wall and see if it sticks

This is an example of how the government justifies taking control of our lives.

I was drinking a cup of coffee, relaxed in my easy chair reading the Federal Register -
(21 CFR Parts 1, 16, 106, Et al. Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption; Current Good Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food...).

That heading really caught my attention as it would yours. So I wanted to know what it would do, what it would cost and what benefits it would provide. Along with a lot of testing and record keeping, it says there better not be any human or animal poop nearby.

But here are some significant numbers:

1. Estimate of number of food borne illnesses prevented: 1.75 million
2. The cost saving associated of those illnesses: $1.04 billion
3. The cost of the proposed rules: $630.18 million

That is a worldwide benefit of $406.22 million. Isn't that impressive? In coming up with the number of illnesses and their costs the FDA added this:

"...Making a precise estimate of the rule's likely effectiveness is extremely difficult, because FDA has only limited data that would establish a clear baseline estimate of how contamination occurs and the likely impact of the proposed provisions on that baseline, with respect to causing human illness."

I'll interpret that for you. "We threw some numbers up in the air and these came down face up so we could read them."

The cost of $630.18 million is paid by the farms. The estimated cost per farm ranges from $4,697 to $30,566. The savings for illnesses is about $595 per person because the person did not get sick. Of course, if you apply that to the American society instead of just the person not getting sick, then it comes out to about $2 per person.

So when you buy that head of lettuce and you notice there is a slight increase in cost to you, don't forget that $2 that you saved.

Mean and divisive people

Back in 2012, a recording of Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for President, was made public. You remember that. He said that 47% of the people will vote for Obama no matter what. They don't pay taxes. They depend upon the government. They believe they are victims. They believe the government has the responsibility to take care of them. "My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." Jim Messina, the President's campaign manager, immediately said that Romney was demonstrating disgust and disdain for one-half of Americans and should not be president. The Associated Press and the Guardian immediately pointed out that his comment included the elderly. The Guardian said he was "a bad politician" and "a bad person." It concluded that he is mean and divisive and not qualified to be president. 

Now President Obama has said that only 5% will lose their insurance coverage. In an interview on NBC recently he said: "We're talking about 5% of the population who are in what's called the individual market. They're out there buying health insurance on their own." So we give him a pass. I mean, there's a big difference between 5% and 47%.

Well maybe not. First let's consider that he lies. If his lips are moving, he is lying. In a post in The Apothecary, with Avik Roy, Roy quotes the Federal Register state saying that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will lose the "grandfather status." Combine that with the cancellation of private-sector health insurance and we get close to 93 million Americans losing their policies.

 Okay, now we are getting closer to 47%. So is the prez showing "disgust and disdain?" Is he "a bad politician" and "a bad person?" Is he being "mean and divisive and not qualified to be president?"

There are many people coming forward and saying (anecdotal evidence) that the premiums for the plans being offered to them are much higher. They also say that their out of pocket costs (deductibles and cost-sharing) will be much higher. There is no such parade of people coming forward and saying just the opposite. 

We were duped by the president and all the other democrats.
I'll say it. The president is disgusting, mean and divisive.

Another war on women

Check out these facts:
Each year, diseases caused by cigarette smoking result in $96 billion in health care costs much of which is paid by taxpayers through publicly-funded health programs. Smoking puts each of us in danger AND there is an associated cost. So the government has told us to quit smoking, moved smokers outside and then off the property.

(Most data in this post come from the FDA website)

Trans fats are bad for us.Reducing trans fat consumption could prevent 10,000-20,000 heart attacks and 3,000-7,000 coronary heart disease deaths each year in the U S. The economic cost for the U S from heart disease, diabetes, and cancer is estimated at $71 billion annually. Trans fats are putting our health in danger and there is an associated cost. Get rid of the Crisco, donuts and packaged cookies and cakes.

We love our snack foods. In 2005, the medical costs attributable to obesity in the US were an estimated $190 billion. Snack foods are putting our health in danger and there is an associated cost. So snack foods are being taken out of schools and in some locales are being taxed in the hope of reducing consumption.

The CDCs new estimates show that there are about 20 million new infections in the US each year, costing the American healthcare system nearly $16 billion in direct medical costs alone. If left untreated, STDs can lead to serious complications, such as pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, ectopic pregnancy and death. Health problems caused by STDs tend to be more severe and more frequent for women than for men. And young African-American women face significantly higher rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea than any other group.

The strange thing is that the government takes action against the previously mentioned bad things to reduce the activity. But the government, through Obamacare, is encouraging the activity from which STDs arise. Because of Obamacare, birth control is "free." When anything is free, the user will chose the best on the list and use it often. Now there are advertisements for Obamacare suggesting that women should sign up for Obamacare because it allows easy access to birth control. In the ad, Susie says: "...My health insurance covers the pill, which means all I have to worry about is getting him between the covers."

Sandra Fluke demanded that insurance providers allow for free birth control. Her demand was met. Now women are being encouraged to engage in a more active sex life.

STDs are putting our health in danger and there is an associated cost.  But this activity is being encouraged by the government. Isn't this bad for all of us?

Isn't this a war on women?

Hey dems: READ THE BILLS

You've seen videos of an alligator being caught with a rope, haven't you? Upon being caught, the gator twists violently. That's the prez and the other democrats now. They are twisting and turning trying to get out of the mess they are in. And what is holding the other end of the rope? No, it is not the republicans. It is the law, Obamacare. The democrats (and not one republican) passed a law that none of them had read. They trusted the creators of this thing. The creators were university professors and other socialist-leaning people. Their goal was to gain absolute control over each American life under the assumption that "We can make their life better."

I blame the mess they are in on one group of Americans. I blame all who did not read it.

The senators and representatives did not read the bill and did not have their aides analyze any part of it. The bill had over 2800 pages. Remember Rep Conyers saying that you would have to have several days to read it and a team of lawyers to understand what was in it?

The media did not read the bill, yet they supported it. They supported their favorite team. They assumed their team certainly could do no wrong with this bill.

Some people read it (at least in part) and turned against it. Check out my posts from 2009.
When anyone spoke against it, those who had not read it resorted to name calling and generalities. "It will cover the 30 million people without insurance." "No one will be denied coverage." "We can all get ...free and free...." "They are radicals." "They are the far right." They claimed the 30 million were unable to get insurance. The truth was that only some of those were unable to get insurance. Many chose not to be insured.

What else are they not reading?

The immigration bill is nearly 1200 pages. Did the senators read it or just pass it? Here's what Luis Gutierrez says: “We are looking for a piece of legislation that meets the needs of a 21st century economy, and at the same time renews the American commitment to the dignity and capacity of people living and working within our borders and the indelible right to humane and equal treatment under the law—not just one that is politically viable.” 

Well, that sums up 1200 pages in such a way that I would vote for it...NOT.

The dormant global warming bill (HB2454) has nearly 1000 pages. I know none of them have read that. They are just told that is what their party wants, so PASS IT.  Fortunately, Obamacare sidetracked that. But remember, the prez has signed an E O  and formed a committee. He's doing an end run to get that job done.

To all the elected officials in D C: READ THE BILLS. Then tell us, without the feel good language, what is in it, what it does, what it doesn't do, what it prevents, what it allows and what it costs.

We will tell you how to vote for us, the people you represent.

The immigration bill: More tax dollars going to the unions

The economy is in the tank. What actions can the government take to create a business environment that will lead to economic growth and therefore, more jobs? The government thinks that if you create a youth employment plan for the summer that there will be more job slots available. In the immigration bill (S 744), there is Title V which allocates $1.5 billion to the states based upon their unemployment levels. If jobs are not being created currently, where will these youth go to work? Sounds like the Senate just wants to increase the employment in government (union) positions.

There will be "training and eduction" related to this. And of course, we don't have any of those provided by the government, do we? The states will create workforce investment areas. That just creates a "zone" in which the state will spend our money. In the past, when these zones are created, the employers are given some kind of monetary reward for hiring one of the participants. This could be a Federal, State or Local tax break of some kind. So if new jobs are not being created, what's going on? Seems to me that the employer is going to "lay off" an employee and hire a participant in the plan  to get the monetary reward. 

I hate to be negative but we are accomplishing nothing more than taking money out of our pockets and feeding more government programs. Let's create an environment that encourages businesses to create NEW job positions. The youth will become employed because there will be a true need.

The tax man cometh

Here are some of the causes for the high premium costs:

There is a total of $11,000,000,000 (11 billion) collected annually from drug and device manufacturers and insurance providers. That amount includes $6.7 billion from the providers. That gets added to the premium costs.

Insurance companies are not allowed to pay any employee more than $500,000 in any year. If it does, the excess is not deductible on their tax returns. That extra tax adds to your premium.

Here are some other taxes that may affect you:

Medical costs on schedule A of your tax return is deductible to the extent they exceed 10% of AGI. That's an increase from 7 1/2%. That decreases your deduction.

If your wages exceed $250,000 on a joint return, then you pay an additional .5% tax on the excess. That additional tax also applies to self-employed earnings.

There is a 5% tax on cosmetic surgery that does not alleviate a medical condition.

And of course, there is a 10% tax on tanning services.

Another stupid politician speaks up

This is from the Blaze (bold is mine):
Under Massachusetts law, it is “unlawful to store or keep any firearm … in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user.

That law is meant to protect us. Just think...someone breaks into your home and your weapon is locked up.  "Hold a sec, I'll be right with you." The weapon is inoperable for anyone at that point.

So now a local politician wants to pass a law that allows the police to come in to make sure the homeowner is abiding by the law. This guy is as disgusting as those breaking into our homes.

Furries and discrimination

The ENDA bill that just left the Senate aims to end discrimination in the workplace "..because of such individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity." As defined in the law, gender identity:

"...means the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard tot he individual's designated sex at birth."

As you can see, the bill does not address furries. Employers still have a group to discriminate against. They aren't required to have sandboxes in the offices or designated poop sites in the green areas. In fact, the bill does not even require special facilities for the gender-related group. It does not address the bathroom issue. I'm sure that is an oversight and will be corrected by the House.

The god syndrome

Milk is not good for you. If you must drink it, make sure it is 2% or 1% -- you know, water with white coloring.

White bread is not good for you. Eat whole wheat.

Sugar is bad for you. If you must have something sweet, make sure it has a sugar substitute. Researchers found there were 3.16 mil worldwide deaths related to sugar. No year given for that study.

Big gulps....bad, bad... 180,000 deaths worldwide each year.

Salt .... bad, bad... 2.3 mil deaths worldwide each year.

Trans fats...is a piker with only 7,000 annual deaths. But that is still not acceptable.

The various governments including ours through the FDA want to change that. They want to STOP those deaths. Once they beat every disease (and deaths)  they will be able to say "Yes, there is a god and it is us!!"

To prevent suicides (38,000+ U S deaths in 2010), they will have to listen to our conversations and read our emails. Oh, crap, they are doing that. Then why don't they just say they're doing it for our health!!

About ACES - Part 5

Under Title II Sec 201 of ACES, energy efficiency in building codes is addressed. It essentially says that for new building construction, there will be a phase-in of energy efficiency. That means buildings must reduce the use of fossil fuel based electricity and heat water through solar energy.

Somewhere in other laws and regulations there is a baseline of allowable energy usage. I cannot find that number. According to ACES that amount must be reduced by 30% in the year of enactment. Well, since ACES is not enacted and the prez is committed to doing this, the various Federal departments and agencies must get it done through regulations. By 2030, the baseline must be reduced by 100%. I’m no wizard, but no matter what the baseline is, if you reduce any amount by 100%, I think you get zero. That means that no multistory building built in 2030 will be allowed to use fossil-fueled energy.

The phase-in is less stringent for residential construction. There is a five year delay before such construction must be reduced by 50%. Then it catches up so that by 2030 the reduction is at 100%.

Sec 213 of Title II changes the energy conservation standards for washers, dishwashers, showerheads, faucets, water closets and urinals. It also addresses energy consumption of televisions.

Just thought you would want to know.

More to come....

About ACES - Part 4

I know that ACES is just a bill and has been dormant for 4 years but its the parts of ACES that the prez is trying to get done starting with his recent E. O.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act required that manufacturers label their products for their energy efficiency. You know as you have been shopping for washer/dryers, refrigerators, etc, the yellow label tells you that after you spend $1,000+, you will save $10-$15 per year in electricity costs. ACES takes it a little farther and requires that manufacturers to identify whether or not the products are SMART GRID capable.

Some of you may know that there is a device that you can install in your home that will allow you to control all of your SMART electric appliances. From your office, you can turn on your dishwasher, washing machine and other units. You've seen the ads showing that from your office, you can adjust your a/c, raise/lower the garage door, and set your alarm system. This device works the same way. And if you can change the operation, SO CAN THE UTILITY COMPANY.

The idea of the SMART GRID is to allow the utility companies to reduce "peak" demand. Honestly, the government wants us AND the utility to reduce consumption. Remember, we're trying to save the world. So eventually, the utilities will have to provide us with electricity a portion of which comes from alternative sources. And they must reduce peak demand. They can do that by controlling our appliances. If the peak is really bad, they will be able to turn off the a/c or heating unit.

Just imagine...
You have a large gathering at home for the super bowl. Someone spills the cheese dip and red wine on your white tablecloth. You quickly throw it into the washing machine but it is half-time. And as with all super bowl half times, there is a peak demand. To help reduce that demand, the utility turns off your washing machine. (Hopefully, they will notify you that they have done so).

Well isn't that special!!

More to come....

About ACES - Part 3

SUBTITLE C - CLEAN TRANSPORTATION

Each electic utility shall (must?) develop a plan to support the use of plug-in electric drive vehicles. 

Charging stations may (must?) be deployed in public and private locatiions (i.e. everywhere).

The charging stations may (must?) include fast charging units, battery exchanges, and “other services.”

The charging stations must be interoperable (charge every type of vehicle).

The utility will be allowed cost recovery for the charging stations (hint: higher utiltity rates).

The charging stations must be able to identify the ownership of each vehicle so that the owner can be billed.

The Secretary of Energy may provide financial assistance for the establishment of these charging stations (hint: higher taxes).

The Secretary of Energy may provide fiancial assistance to state and local governments to get these charging stations intalled (hint: higher taxes).

The Secretary of Energy may provide financial assistance to auto manufacturers for reconstructions and retooling (hint: higher taxes).

That financial assistance is separate from the “allowances” which the Secretary may give the manufaturers. These allowances will be used to pay up to 30% of the cost of reequipping, expanding, or establishing a manufactuirng facility. Allowances are pieces of paper that have a value as determined by the open market because they are tradable. If the Secretary provides those to the manufacturers, then the Secretary must buy them (hint: higher taxes).

More to come….

About ACES - Part 2

About ACES - Part 2

Here's an interesting clause in H B 2454:

The  (DOE) Secretary....shall issue for notice and comment a proposed rule to determine the level of fossil fuel electricity delivered to retail customers by each distribution utility....

So what does that mean?

The secretary will be determining what percentage of your usage will be from alternative sources, those other than fossil fuel. If your electricity provider does not have an alternative plant, it must buy that percentage from wind farms, solar panel farms or some other acceptable alternatives. That will cost the provider a lot more and this new cost will be passed on to you. This won't be called a tax because it is the evil corporations doing it. This is what they did with Obamare. The law forces insurance providers to make changes, increasing your policy costs and the providers get the blame.

More to follow

About ACES - Part 2

Here's an interesting clause in H B 2454:

The  (DOE) Secretary....shall issue for notice and comment a proposed rule to determine the level of fossil fuel electricity delivered to retail customers by each distribution utility....

So what does that mean?

The secretary will be determining what percentage of your usage will be from alternative sources, those other than fossil fuel. If your electricity provider does not have an alternative plant, it must buy that percentage from wind farms, solar panel farms or some other acceptable alternatives. That will cost the provider a lot more and this new cost will be passed on to you. This won't be called a tax because it is the evil corporations doing it. This is what they did with Obamare. The law forces insurance providers to make changes, increasing your policy costs and the providers get the blame.

More to follow

About ACES - Part 1

H. B. 2454 is 1200 pages long. Sound familiar? "You have to pass it to find out what's in it." Trust me. You DO want to know what is in it. That bill is dormant right now. I suspect that the committee the prez established with his new E. O. will piece all the parts together. And through the EPA, other Federal departments and agencies as well as more E O s, the job will get done.

HOW THEY WILL DO IT
How should I start. Hmm... I guess I'll start with the Carbon Storage Research Corporation. This is a company that will be established by "qualified industry organizations." The first thing that it must do is to raise money from amongst themselves. The bill was submitted in 2009 and the amount ranged from about $1,000,000 to $1,750,000. That was 2009. I have to assume that would be much higher today. Of course, the bill allows this amount to be passed on to the users (that would be you and me). They get to raise funds each year. The rate each year will depend upon the submitted budget for all the "probable" costs. Here's a real laugher: "If the corporation does not disburse...75% or more of the available proceeds" after 7 years, the amount not disbursed must be returned.
Let's say that the average assessment was $1,500,000. So for 7 years that would be $10,500,000. And 25% of that would be $2,625,000. The annual electrical usage in 2011 was 4.38 billion kWh. So here is what you would get back:

Your annual kWh/4,380,000,000 X $2,625,000

That would be $.46 for me. Never mind, please apply that to the national debt.

WHAT THEY WILL DO
This company will use that money to issue grants to eligible entities. What are these entities supposed to do? They are going to find ways to "Capture" carbon emissions and "Sequester" (store) those emissions. I'm sure we can study that for under $15 million over 10 years. NOT!! I see them saying that that is not nearly enough to study such a complex problem

More to come