Health Care or Power Grab?

The administration tells us they need to push through this gynormous health care plan right away. Quick. No time to read the 1,000-page bill. No time to discuss it. Let's just get it passed or we'll all die!

How much money are they spending on television ads to remind us about all the people without insurance who will die without socialized healthcare? Isn't that a sign that we should be worried?

This really worries me. Read Glenn Beck's review of the plan. Take a look at this handy flowchart that shows how simple the health care plan really is.

Cap & Trade Scam

The Cap and Trade energy tax is the biggest scam to hit America since I can remember. It is nothing but a redistrubution of wealth from states that rely on coal (like Utah) to states that create alternative energy. They get the same amount of emmissions credits, and without doing anything, sell it to Utah and take our money. It is the equivalant of paying companies for not performing any service at all. (By the way, take a look at who runs the companies who stand to make the most off this, and you'll see that this is just payback for those who voted in our current administration and congress.)

Below is the text of a letter I received today, written July 13th by Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. The phrases in bold italics below are my highlights.

Dear Mr. Richman,

Thank you for your letter expressing opposition to cap and trade legislation as it pertains to energy policy in the United States. I share your concerns with the cap and trade proposals being considered, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

On May 15, 2009, Congressmen Henry Waxman and Edward Markey introduced, H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act which would establish a cap and trade program to control human activities resulting in carbon dioxide emissions. As you may know, on June 26, 2009, the House of Representatives narrowly passed this legislation with a 219-212 vote. Over the next several weeks, the Senate is expected to hold several hearings on climate change legislation and a full Senate vote is expected no earlier than September of this year.

Let me be clear, I have serious concerns with any legislation that proposes a cap and trade system to reduce human carbon emissions. I believe such proposals are not the most effective approach to reducing carbon emissions (CO2), and I question whether controlling human activity can have any influence on the climate. I believe it is important to look at the scientific basis for climate change legislation and to weigh the cost and benefits of such legislation.

Though it is not widely covered in the media, there is considerable debate within the scientific community regarding the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The United Nations Panel on Intergovernmental Climate Change (IPCC) bases its theory of AGW on a number of assumptions. The validity of these assumptions continues to be the basis for the debate surrounding global warming. If the assumptions are wrong, the theory is faulty.

The most obvious assumption is that a causal relationship exists between human carbon emissions and observed warming. If most of the global warming has resulted from human CO2 emissions, then real-world observations of these two variables should demonstrate a correlation. This assumption is not supported by one of the most comprehensive and widely accepted data sets available to climate science: the Vostok ice cores taken in Antarctica.

We now have 600,000 years of ice core data showing a very strong correlation between changes in temperature and carbon levels in the atmosphere. The most recent analysis of the data shows clearly that changes in atmospheric carbon follow changes in temperature with a lag of between 800 and one thousand years. In short, more than one half of a million years of observed data fail to support the very central IPCC assumption that CO2 is a primary driver of the climate. Instead, the data supports the possibility that the opposite relationship exists. Furthermore, climate models failed to predict the climate trends that scientists have observed over the past decade. Actual observations show that the Earth's climates has cooled since 1998.

Moreover, a simple cost-benefit analysis shows that if all provisions of the cap and trade program were implemented global temperatures would only decrease by nine-hundredths of a degree Fahrenheit. This means that for every dollar we spent to combat global warming through carbon emissions, we do far less than a dollar of good.

Proponents ignore the cost-benefit analysis by claiming the program would generate more than $1.6 trillion in revenues. What they do not tell you is who would pay for it. The fact of the matter is, Utahns and all American families across the country will pay for it. A study done by the Rural Electric Cooperative Association concluded that a carbon cap-and-trade program could result in a 70 percent increase in the average Utah family's electric bill, making it the highest increase in the nation. Additionally, as manufacturers struggle to meet expensive mandates, high prices will be passed onto the consumer. Given the current state of our economy, we can ill afford to overburden taxpayers for a program which provides minimal benefits and threatens our global competitiveness.

We should make sure we are not disadvantaging ourselves among our international competitors. As we seek to become more energy independent, this legislation will in fact result in an annual $120 billion reduction in our economy, while ensuring our competitors such as China, gain a distinct advantage over us in the worldwide marketplace. It will send more than a million of our manufacturing jobs to countries with less-stringent environmental standards resulting in a net increase of global CO2 emissions. Unless we require the same standards of our international competitors, it would certainly reduce U.S. jobs while increasing global CO2 emissions.

Rather than looking at ways to artificially control society through the creation of a false market, we should be tapping into the free market to reduce CO2. False markets simply redistribute wealth to preselected winners and losers, the winners here would be the select few who control carbon credits and the rest of us would be the losers. Such an outcome is the natural result of mandatory cap-and-trade rules, for if you control carbon, you control life.

Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,
Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator

Ducks or Eagles?

No one can make you serve customers well. That's because great service is a choice.

Harvey Mackay, tells a wonderful story about a cab driver that proved this point.

He was waiting in line for a ride at the airport. When a cab pulled up, the first thing Harvey noticed was that the taxi was polished to a bright shine. Smartly dressed in a white shirt, black tie, and freshly pressed black slacks, the cab driver jumped out and rounded the car to open the back passenger door for Harvey .

He handed my friend a laminated card and said: 'I'm Wally, your driver. While I'm loading your bags in the trunk I'd like you to read my mission statement.'

Taken aback, Harvey read the card.

It said: Wally's Mission Statement: "To get my customers to their destination in the quickest, safest and cheapest way possible in a friendly environment."

This blew Harvey away. Especially when he noticed that the inside of the cab matched the outside. Spotlessly clean!

As he slid behind the wheel, Wally said, 'Would you like a cup of coffee? I have a thermos of regular and one of decaf.'

My friend said jokingly, 'No, I'd prefer a soft drink.'

Wally smiled and said, 'No problem. I have a cooler up front with regular and Diet Coke, water and orange juice.'

Almost stuttering, Harvey said, 'I'll take a Diet Coke.'

Handing him his drink, Wally said, 'If you'd like something to read, I have The Wall Street Journal, Time, Sports Illustrated and USA Today.'

As they were pulling away, Wally handed my friend another laminated card, 'These are the stations I get and the music they play, if you'd like to listen to the radio.'

And as if that weren't enough, Wally told Harvey that he had the air conditioning on and asked if the temperature was comfortable for him.

Then he advised Harvey of the best route to his destination for that time of day. He also let him know that he'd be happy to chat and tell him about some of the sights or, if Harvey preferred, to leave him with his own thoughts.

'Tell me, Wally,' my amazed friend asked the driver, 'have you always served customers like this?'

Wally smiled into the rear view mirror. 'No, not always. In fact, it's only been in the last two years. My first five years driving, I spent most of my time complaining like all the rest of the cabbies do. Then I heard the personal growth guru, Wayne Dyer, on the radio one day.
He had just written a book called You'll See It When You Believe It . Dyer said that if you get up in the morning expecting to have a bad day, you'll rarely disappoint yourself. He said, 'Stop complaining! Differentiate yourself from your competition. Don't be a duck. Be an eagle.. Ducks quack and complain. Eagles soar above the crowd.''

'That hit me right between the eyes,' said Wally. 'Dyer was really talking about me. I was always quacking and complaining, so I decided to change my attitude and become an eagle. I looked around at the other cabs and their drivers. The cabs were dirty, the drivers were unfriendly, and the customers were unhappy.. So I decided to make some changes. I put in a few at a time. When my customers responded well, I did more.'

'I take it that has paid off for you,' Harvey said.

'It sure has,' Wally replied. 'My first year as an eagle, I doubled my income from the previous year. This year I'll probably quadruple it. You were lucky to get me today. I don't sit at cabstands anymore. My customers call me for appointments on my cell phone or leave a message on my answering machine. If I can't pick them up myself, I get a reliable cabbie friend to do it and I take a piece of the action.'

Wally was phenomenal. He was running a limo service out of a Yellow Cab. I've probably told that story to more than fifty cab drivers over the years, and only two took the idea and ran with it. Whenever I go to their cities, I give them a call.. The rest of the drivers quacked like ducks and told me all the reasons they couldn't do any of what I was suggesting.

Wally the Cab Driver made a different choice. He decided to stop
quacking like ducks and start soaring like eagles.

How about us?

Smile, and the whole world smiles with you... The ball is in our hands!

A man/woman reaps what he/she sows. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.... let us do good to all people.

Ducks Quack (and waddle), Eagles Soar (and glide)

Charitable Giving

It seems that America is moving away from personal charity toward a system of having the government handle it. When we turn individual acts of charity into government programs, it becomes fake charity. It’s much more meaningful when we give food or money directly to a needy person rather than having a set amount deducted from our paychecks for a vague program where the giver never sees the person who receives.

The government shouldn’t decide who is deserving of help; that should be a personal decision.

When government forces you to provide specified "community service" as a condition of a student loan, that's work-for-hire, not community service.

Our government leaders should set the example. Here's how our recent leaders stack up in personal charitable donations:

• President Obama donated $240,000 to charity last year (5.7% of his income).
• Vice-President Biden gave a measly $369 per year (0.2% of his income) over the past 10 years.
• Vice President Al Gore gave only $353 in 1997.
• Vice President Dick Cheney donated $209,832 (1% of his income).
• Candidate John McCain gave $202,000 (25% of his income) in 2006 and 2007.
• President George W. Bush gave $75,560 (12%) in 2005 and about half that much in 1991-3.
• Candidate John Kerry's gave $0 in 1995, $2,039 in 1994, $175 in 1993, $820 in 1992, and $0 in 1991.

Our leaders seem eager to be charitable with tax payers' money, but rather stingy with their own money.

President Obama wants to discourage personal charitable giving by reducing tax deductions for personal charitable donations. That doesn't make sense.

Impact of Cap & Trade Energy Tax

I received the following letter from congressman Jason Chaffetz from Utah. The phrases in bold italics below are my highlights.

July 10, 2009

Dear Mr. Richman,

I did not support the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, more commonly referred to as the "cap and trade" bill. Unfortunately, this bill passed the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009. The stated objectives of this bill are to create clean energy jobs, reduce global warming pollution, achieve energy independence, and transition to a clean energy economy.

For average Americans, the impacts of this bill will be dramatic. According to Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the average American can expect "persistently higher prices for.electricity and gasoline." This will be especially evident in Utah, where each person is estimated to be hit with $1,115.47 in new taxes on their electricity bill alone. That means the average Utah family's (3.08 people/household) annual electricity bill will increase by $3,435.65. That's nearly $290 per month on top of what they already pay for electricity. I do not believe this colossal tax increase on the American people is worth nine-hundredths of 1 degree.

The authors of this legislation cite global warming as the driving force behind the bill. I do not believe human activity drives the earth's warming and cooling cycles. The doomsday warming scenarios stem from a 2001 study performed by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In this study, 245 potential scenarios were offered. The media and politicians all over the world have adopted the worst-case scenario as fact and have in turn imposed panic-stricken fears amongst Americans and the entire world.

Emma Brindal of Friends of the Earth said in December 2007, "A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources." This is similar to Senator Ben Cardin's (D-MD) explanation of cap-and-trade, "[cap and trade is] the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time." Cap and tax is nothing more than a massive expansion of government that will punish business, expand entitlement programs, and raise taxes for 100% of American energy users. Leave it to the Congress to offer a non-solution to a problem that does not even exist.

Unfortunately, the democratically controlled House of Representative fast-tracked cap and tax through the legislative process and ignored all other viable alternatives. Instead of a massive top-down government mandate on to the economy, I support the American Energy and Innovation Act. This bill stands on three pillars: Innovation, Conservation, and Production. I support this bill and encourage you to learn more. These three pillars will:

• Promote innovation within the energy market through entrepreneurship while reducing financial, regulatory, and legal burdens.
• Provide incentives to reduce demand and increase domestic energy security by promoting greater conservation and efficiency.
• Encourage the production of more American energy from all available resources and technologies (expanding both onshore and offshore oil/natural gas drilling and encouraging the use and development of alternative energy sources)

To learn more about the American Energy Innovation Act, please visit my website at http://chaffetz.house.gov/.

Sincerely, Jason Chaffetz
Member of Congress

Baby Break Dance

Read the Book Common Sense

I just finished reading Glenn Beck's new book Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, inspired by Thomas Paine's original book.

It makes a lot of sense.

Evian Roller Babies

Damien Walters: Superhero

See more funny videos and TBT Videos at Today's Big Thing.

I Resign from the Republican Party

We have a one-party system in America.

Although there are technically two major parties, I see no distinguishable difference between the Republicans and Democrats in practical application. They are both for big government, more intervention into our lives, higher taxes, reckless spending, and endless rhetoric that really says nothing. When you read the Republican platform and the Democratic platform, all you get are words that are carefully-chosen not to offend anyone, but they don't really stand for anything.

The Democratic Party continues to move to the left, and the Republican Party follows along. The Democratic Party is really now the Progressive Party (see note below on progressivism) and the Republican Party is now the old Democratic Party.

Therefore, I no longer consider myself a Republican. I intend to vote independently for people who stand for the conservative values I stated in yesterday's post. I certainly hope responsible candidates rise to the occasion.

Effective today, I changed my party affiliation with the Salt Lake County Clerk from Republican to Unaffiliated. Here is the form for Salt Lake County to change your party affiliation, if you wish to do so. I have also written to the Republican Party to explain my position. Perhaps if millions of Americans left the Republican Party, it would wake up and return to conservative values. If not, a new party will need to emerge that speaks to what I believe is the silent majority of Americans.

* Progressivism is the opposite of conservative ideologies. In the United States, the ideology made great strides under presidents Roosevelt and Wilson with the establishment of the welfare program and organized labor unions. It favors interventionist economics over capitalism, collective rights over personal liberties, and socialized over private health care, insurance, and other services. It believes in government control for the good of its citizens, including government control of most services and business rather than private enterprise. To learn about about progressivism, read chapter 5 of Glenn Beck's new book Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government.