Coal - the employer of the unskilled middleclass (and I suppose some skilled as well)

A video has surfaced. In it Obama says his policies will bankrupt the coal industry and cause energy prices to skyrocket. I don't know about you, but this seems like a really bad idea when we are heading into a recession. Right up there with Hoover's decisions to increase taxes on businesses and impose protectionist trade tariffs that launched an international trade war and helped force us into a Great Depression. Wait, doesn't Obama want to increase taxes on businesses and put in protectionist trade measures? Huh. This isn't looking good for the US economy.

I mean I am no Ph.D. in economics, but I am also not an idiot (As a side note I said years ago that the housing market was in a bubble, before even the Ph.D.'s agreed, so maybe I am smarter than Ph.D.... or maybe not, just saying). Call me crazy, but it just seems like a really bad idea to put in place policies that will bankrupt an industry that provides jobs for a whole lot of middleclass Americans (not including the impact the destruction of the coal industry would have on industries like railroads that derive a lot of business and profit from transporting coal) and cause energy prices to sky rocket. This would seem to hurt the middleclass. And I just don't think Obama's welfare for the working tax policy will compensate for the increased energy prices and higher unemployment.

Here is a link to a website that has tons of stuff on the video:
http://www.baltimorereporter.com/index.php?cat=38

here are some people's responses to Obama's comment:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Ohio-Coal-Association-Says-Obama/story.aspx?guid=%7BDFD1EBEB-73EC-4661-B8BA-40D8EBD7D93D%7D

http://www.wvrecord.com/news/215679-coal-official-calls-obama-comments-unbelievable

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/tag/obama/

and CNN mentions it in a highly slanted way that ignores the fact that the newspaper with this video never released a transcript and never mentioned it contents to anyone, but they had the video in January so apparently it is old news even though no one had ever heard it (slant much??)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/02/palin-knocks-obama-over-months-old-coal-comments/

Let's see if Pennsylvania officials actually care about their citizens. Will they say "Folks, I changed my mind. Don't vote for Obama." Or will they keep drinking the koolaid.

PS - Some democrats response has been but McCain supports cap and trade, too (this response doesn't work for a toddler, I'm not quite sure why they think it'll work as an adult). However, the plans are VERY VERY VERY different and McCain's plan is not going to bankrupt coal or drive up energy costs. His is more economy sensitive. Go research and compare. And, after all, he is a Republican. You know the green we speak of is money not trees (though we do love the environment, just a little less than Obama apparently).

I am glad I am not a democratic feminist right now.

So I went down to Dayton to see McCain announce his VP. When he announced Palin, I realized this could be a good pick. I didn't know much about her yet, just that she had a lot of kids, her husband was pretty darn attractive for an older guy, and she was the governor of Alaska. However, this blog isn't about whether Sarah Palin is a good pick. I think she is (it is VP after all, not President, so the experience requirement isn't quite as high, and she runs a state successfully, all Obama has done is run a campaign (after he won his senatorship because of a scandal)). What this is about is what I learned about democrats.

From the liberal left certain phrases abound when describing Palin: "hot hockey mom," "MILF," "token," "stewardess," and "bad mother for not caring for her kids." I am pretty much disgusted. How can they sit there and speak of change and a better future and in the next breath say a woman can't be VP because she has kids. What is this, 1908? When have fathers stopped being parents that can look after children (well, since the democrats seem to be advancing an agenda that encourages single motherhood, perhaps they don't think the father is important)? When has a woman's role been reduced to just that of (hot) wife and mother? Isn't the left supposed to be the side pushing for woman's rights?

And from the female feminists on the left, I have learned one thing: apparently one cannot be a feminist and be pro-life. Apparently, I am not a feminist. Could have fooled me. I have thought I was a feminist, what with my believing in the equality of females and males, the need to fight against sexism, and that women are more than mothers and that it is wrong of society to say your career must end if you pop out a couple of kids. I'll be sure to inform my other feminist friends that our only agenda is securing women everywhere the right to kill unborn children. Honestly, here we have Sarah Palin who worked her way up through the political world of Alaska, battled corruption, became the first female Alaskan governor, has 80% approval rating in her state, all while raising 5 kids. But, no, nothing to respect there. However, Hillary, who got her senatorship because of her husband, is the ideal for feminists?

I am glad I have seen what the democratic party is composed of and I am glad I am a Republican Feminist.

my solution to healthcare

So nationalized healthcare or nonnationalized healthcare, that is the question?

My solution a hybridization, partly because I like my private healthcare. This hybridization will lead to a nationalized healthcare system if the system is run smoothly and efficiently, but will allow individuals to seek private insurance if the public system is not run well. Less money will be needed to pay for the system as a private system will still exist which many individuals will choose to operate under and so taxes will not go up exponentially fund this program.

We create the National Health Insurance Board, it oversees Medicare and the futurely expanded Medicaid. We revamp medicare so it is just for elderly and simplify it (remove privitization as it confused elderly) and expand medicaid. We allow for the existence of a private healthcare alternative and if you make above a certain income you can buy into the government system in a graduated system that reflects your ability to pay but remains below the cost for private insurance.

Those within the public healthcare system have to pay a co-pay so that there is a cost control mechanism. The co-pay for an emergency room visit should be higher than for an office visit to a doctor. If determined necessary, this co-pay can reflect your income level (i.e., ER for poor = $10 and not poor = $20), but still not more than private insurance.

The government also takes over the payment for catastrophic long-term care illnesses, like cancer, etc., but without removing institutions like St. Judes. The government should encourage donations to such institutions to not only off-set government costs but continually connect the public to the needs of the fellow citizens. This offsetting will also reduce the cost of private insurance, thereby better allowing people to afford and reducing the strain on the government for everyday care. Individuals, if they so desire, can buy supplemental private insurance for catastrophy care if they so desire.

The government must negotiate with drug companies and drug companies are limited in what they can charge for drugs where some other source assisted in the creation of or payment for a drug. Any government investment is drug creation results in caps on profit (most drugs involve government grants or loans). Any new and innovative drug (i.e., not clarinex type drugs) that ends of failing, the drug companies can write off loans from the government up to some percentage. The government agency that is created to oversee the healthcare system will work to stabilize and equalize the costs for patient treatments and medical supplies so that one hospital isn't charging 10 times the rate of the hospital down the street for the same procedure.

Wow, that was so hard. Seriously government officials. I just came up with that in 5 minutes. What are you people doing?

What's my favorite topic?

So it's Crazy how everything comes back China. I just cannot escape this country and the need for any future elected official to have a plan to deal with Chinese products. Today's story is poisonous flipflops sold at Walmart from China. They are apparently causing what look like chemical burns on people's feet!! If I was the US gov't I would require testing on all products coming from China. If you know there is an increased likelihood of harm if a product has certain characteristics (in this instance, created in China), it is the obligation of the government to take steps to decrease the probability of consumers suffering from this harm. Isn't this why we have the FDA or the US Product Safety Commission? Maybe some departments should do their job?

Or we could all just stop buying stuff made in China.

Website on it:
http://www.lamanaphotography.com/walmart6.htm
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/flipflop.asp

I would so class action Walmart at this point - my theory: 70% of their products come from China. Walmart is fully aware of the multiple incidences of defective and harmful products from China. They have instituted no new testing procedures to protect consumers from the increased probability of harm that consumer face buying products at a store where 70% of the products are from China. Walmart has therefore assumed the risk by creating the situation which increased the potential for harm for its customers. Alright, not the best, but if you make through summary judgment, the jury will understand.

What I want in a president

So as politicians battle it out to be the nations next president, I began to think about what my ideal president would be and what all the current presidential hopefuls lack. I have decided to center my blog on what the politicians should be doing from my perspective. Feel free to disagree. That is the point of democracy, after all.

Today's blog will be about what they lack.

None of the current hopefuls have advanced any plan to help the nation's ailing economy. Let's face it, the US is in trouble. Our dollar is weak. We are in the midst of a mortgage crisis. We have a huge trade deficit with China. And the current motto is we are becoming a service industry country.

The dollar must be strengthened. I am not an economist or a financial advisor, but I do know the importance of a strong dollar in America. What do the politicians plan to do about it?

The mortgage crisis needs to never happen again. The mortgage industry needs to be more heavily regulated in many areas. Adjustable arm mortgages just need to go. There is no reason for their existence and they just taken advantage of the poor.

Trade deficit with China. Now I am of the belief that the huge trade deficit with China is one of the things that weakening our dollar. This is just a theory, I have done no mathematical calculations to prove it, but it makes sense. The Chinese dollar is artificially devalued. We have a huge trade deficit with China (hint, try to avoid stuff made in china -supply and demand does work. if we don't buy it, they'll eventually stop making it). This imbalance affects our dollar and I am of the belief that this relationship is helping to devalue our dollar.

Seriously, Mexico take up the model China used to get its manufacturing edge. Then you citizens woudl be employed and they can stop fleeing to the US. We don't want your poor and your criminals. Please keep them.

Realistically, shaping an economy around the service industry is just a bad idea. Such an economy is just too tied to the whims of the country and a failure is one sector affects all sectors drastically. There needs to exist a manufacturing sector, a sector that provides jobs to lower skilled workers and offers a home base for the manufacturing that may be necessary for military reason. Also, we need to something to export to offset our trade deficits. The US produces a better grade steel, but we are reducing our production because other coutries are producing a lower grade, but cheaper steel. Personally, however, I want the bridge I drive across to be made of higher grade steel, even if it costs a little more. This may be an area that a litte regulation could go a long way. Just saying.

We need to be encouraging in city schools to be teaching their students trades. These students are likely no going to college and we as a nation seem to have abandoned those children that are not going to college and that is just wrong (not to mention likely leads to a greater need for welfare and welfare related programs). We need to create workers that can do jobs better than the rest of the world to encourage the production of goods within our own nation. Now, I am in general against a universal healthcare system (I worked hard to get where I am so I don't have to wait a week to see a doctor - but that will be a blog for another day), but the government may want to consider offering baseline healthcare for workers of new manufacturing jobs on a temporary basis to take away some of the initial overhead costs of starting a company. Not permanent, mind you, but until the company gets off the ground and can afford the cost.

We, as citizens, need to reward those companies that produce goods in the US by buying their products. Again, good old supply and demand. To make this work, however, this requires government regulation. All goods (including food) need to be labeled according to where they were made and where their parts come from. I especially wish for this in food and it currently does not contain labeling as where it is made. Personally, I think where food is made is more important in terms of my health than were my shirt is made. Think all that killer pet food, the killer toothpaste, the killer cold medicine (all out of China by the way).

Well, that is my bit on the economy. I am sure there is a lot more that can be done. But how would I know, as the politicians seem to feel they should just ignore the issue?