Dems planning on pushing for rules that will give vote to illegal aliens and criminals

Letting crooks & illegals vote: Democrats plan to manipulate elections with universal registration

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, and Rep. Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, have plans to ram through legislation that will produce universal voter registration. No matter what they claim, the rule changes will make it possible for illegal aliens to register to vote and for others to register multiple times. . . .

The IRS as Insurance Regulator

Everyone's favorite agency, the IRS, will be deeply involved in their health care.

As if U.S. tax forms aren't complicated enough, Congress is expected to include in its final health care reform bill a requirement that nearly all Americans have health insurance -- and prove it on their tax returns or face a fine.

The Internal Revenue Service would be tasked with enforcing this new health insurance mandate, prompting some in the tax preparation business to say this is going to add a whole new burden to the tax agency.

"Just the audits of this is going to be huge because our system is a voluntary compliance system," said Terry Jones a private certified public accountant. "The IRS can audit, of course, and this is a whole new area opening up that the IRS is going to have to be on top of."

In addition, the health care reform bill likely would require the IRS to dole out taxpayer dollars -- subsidies -- to low-income Americans to help them pay for health insurance, administer tax credits to small businesses to help them offer health insurance to workers and collect billions of dollars in new taxes on employers, insurance companies and medical device companies. . . .

One top Senate Republican says he's not convinced the IRS is up to the job and wanted some assurances before the Senate voted on the bill . But that didn't happen. . . .

Interestingly, I also saw this headline today: "3 in 10 calls to IRS expected to be ignored."

The Internal Revenue Services is warning tax filers that 3 in 10 calls to the agency will likely be ignored this year,

The IRS said in its annual report to Congress that the IRS is overwhelmed because more people are phoning the IRS with increasingly complex questions than in years past. As a result, the agency has lowered its target rate of answering calls to only 71 percent for the fiscal year 2010, down from 83 percent in fiscal year 2007.

“In other words, the IRS has set its priorities so that nearly three out of every ten calls seeking to reach an IRS telephone assistor will not get through, and callers who do receive assistance will first have to wait on hold for an average of nearly 12 minutes,” the report said.

Although a goal of 71 percent may not seem high enough to tax filers, it would be a better rate of answering calls than the IRS achieved last year.

During the fiscal year 2009 tax season the IRS reported answering only 64 percent of calls with wait times of roughly eight and a half minutes.

Things don't appear to have improved over time and with congressional intervention, either. In 1998 Congress passed legislation to help improve service for taxpayers. That year the rate of service was 69 percent, four points better than the 2009 rate.

Stimulus money disappearing to unknown places

The Washington Examiner has this interesting story:

Phantom zip codes also found in Virginia
By: BARBARA HOLLINGSWORTH
Local Opinion Editor
01/06/10 10:40 AM EST

As much as $9.5 million in federal stimulus dollars went to 14 zip codes in Virginia that don’t exist or are in other states, Old Dominion Watchdog (http://virginia.watchdog.org) reports. The fake zip codes were listed on Recovery.gov, the federal Web site that is supposed to track how the stimulus money is being used.

The phony zip codes are a new wrinkle in Recovery.gov’s increasingly tattered credibility. In November, Ed Pound, director of communications for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, said a rash of phantom congressional districts found on the website were the result of confusion by fund recipients, who apparently didn’t know who their congressman was.

But who would give millions of dollars to somebody who doesn’t even know their own zip code?
More fake zip codes here
UPDATE: Even with a real zip code, it takes seven hours for one firm to report back to Recovery.gov on its $2,000 stimulus contract.

FDIC to determine insurance rate fees based on manager's salaries, not just the direct risk of the bank's investments

It isn't it bad enough that the FDIC is responsible for the S&L crisis and it was responsible because it didn't charge premiums that reflected the riskiness of the bank's assets. Apparently, they didn't learn their lesson.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s board could vote next week to propose tying the fees lenders pay the agency for deposit insurance to the risk profile of compensation packages for executives, people familiar with the matter said.

The plan, if adopted by the regulator, could serve as both a carrot and a stick for lenders. Banks with compensation structures the FDIC views as less risky, such as those that allow firms to claw back pay from executives, could be given a break on the fees they pay on deposit insurance. Firms that have pay structures the FDIC views as giving officials an incentive to put the company at more risk could be forced to pay more.

The proposal is in an early stage, but it represents the latest government effort to curb financial companies' pay structures. Federal officials have criticized banks for offering too many incentives to loan officers and traders with little regard for whether loans or trades eventually went sour. Federal Reserve officials are working on a separate plan to curb the incentives and bonuses banks pay certain employees.

The FDIC has already used its deposit insurance assessment structure to target risky bank behavior. The agency requires banks to pay more in deposit insurance fees if they are on shakier footing, accept large amounts of high-risk deposits, or rely too heavily on funding from Federal Home Loan Banks. . . .

Three-year-old's threat to airline averted

I suppose that the family with two small children (3 and 1.5 years old) looked suspicious.

A TSA screener in New Orleans confiscates a Wildwood three-year-old's favorite toy.

Josh Pitney was not allowed to take a pack of play doh on board his return flight to St. Louis, even though play doh is not on the TSA's list of prohibited items.

Monday afternoon, Josh and his 15 month old little brother sat on the carpet of their home, making fun shapes out of play doh. "You know, all you have to worry about is it getting in the carpet," said their mother, Christy, as she watched them play, "small problem to have when you have a child who is entertained for half an hour."

And play doh probably would have entertained Josh and Nathan for much of their flight home from a post-Christmas trip to New Orleans last week, but a TSA screener decided not to allow the play doh through security. The screener allowed them to keep the plastic mat and tools for molding the play doh, but took the 20 cans of clay out of the box.

"I had the kids and my husband was there with all our bags," recalled Christy. "Josh and I were sitting, getting our shoes on and, my husband kinda motioned to us and said, 'They took our play doh.' And the man from TSA was taking every can out one at a time and putting it on a table, and Josh saw it and he started fussing." . . .

"I tried to explain that those were the rules, but it turns out its not prohibited on the TSA's website, so apparently those aren't the rules." . . .

Terror trial in NYC to cost $216 million

How much security could the US buy with $216 million (note that is just NYC's costs)? How many other things could you buy with that money?

In a letter obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, Mayor Michael Bloomberg put the cost at $216 million for the first year after Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other suspects arrive in Manhattan from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. After that, the mayor said it would cost $200 million annually for as long as the men are detained in the city -- mainly overtime for extra New York Police Department patrols. . . .

Federal officials have said they're still determining the security costs and how they will be paid. No date has been set for the trial.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced last month that Mohammed, the professed mastermind of the 2001 attacks, and four accused of being al-Qaida henchmen would be tried in federal court in lower Manhattan. The court complex, including a jail that would hold the men, is just blocks from where the World Trade Center towers were destroyed in the attack on Sept 11, 2001. . . .

9th Circuit decision gives felons the right to vote while they are serving in prison

The decision: Felons should be allowed to vote because the criminal justice system supposedly incarcerates blacks relative to whites more than it should. The AP discussion on this is here.

A small part of my discussion on felons voting in my book Freedomnomics.

Two, many convicted criminals face severe penalties in addition to a prison sentence. Many jobs are forbidden to felons, often making it hard for them simply to earn a living. Yet, since the 2000 election, the loss of voting rights has suddenly emerged as the most pressing problem that former convicts supposedly face. Restoring voting rights, we are told, is indicative “in so many ways of citizenship that it is more important than owning a gun or being able to hold [a particular job].”
Felons themselves, however, have other priorities. In addition to finding a job, felons, who frequently live in poor, high-crime neighborhoods want to be able to defend themselves. In Virginia, the number one reason felons cite for asking for clemency is the desire to regain their right to own a gun. The Assistant for Clemency for the Governor of Virginia for 1994 and 1995 reported that restoring “voting rights was never on the application for clemency.”
According to academic studies, from 1972 to 1996, on average 80 percent of felons would have voted Democratic. An overwhelming 93 percent ostensibly would have voted for Bill Clinton in 1996. In addition to giving the Democrats the White House in 2000, this “felon vote” would have given Democrats control of the Senate from 1986 to 2004.
But these studies are problematic. Felons’ voting patterns are assumed to be the same as those of non-felons of the same race, gen- der, age, and educational status. The estimates do not account for the possibility that there is something fundamentally different about felons that could cause them to vote differently. If two people are of the same race, gender, age, and educational status but one person commits mur- ders or rapes, there might be something quite different between these two people that could affect how they vote.
Public Opinion Strategies surveyed 602 adults in Washington State in May 2005. Of the respondents, 102 were felons who had their voting rights restored, while 500 were non-felons. They were asked about their political preferences, as well as background information about their race, gender, education level, religious habits, employment, age, and county of residence. This survey makes it possible to test the assumption that felons and non-felons are essentially the same.
The survey’s results indicate that felons vote even more frequently for Democrats than one would estimate based solely on their personal characteristics. After accounting for all these factors, I found that felons were 36 percent more likely than non-felons with the same character- istics to have voted for Kerry over Bush and 37 percent more likely to be registered Democratic. While African-American and Asians in Wash- ington tend to vote for “a few more Democrats than Republicans,” felons among those groups vote for “mostly Democrats.” In fact, felons in both groups voted exclusively for Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry. . . .

Global warming strikes Europe (and China and US and . . .)

From the BBC.

Severe winter weather has brought dangerous conditions and transport disruption to parts of Europe.

In the UK, thousands of schools are closed and travellers have been hit by major delays after heavy snowfall affected large parts of the country.

Temperatures as low as -22C (-8F) have left 122 dead in Poland this winter and the main river, the Vistula, has frozen over, causing fears of flooding.

In the Swiss Alps avalanches have killed at least seven people.

Western France has issued a weather alert for 14 regions hit by heavy snow. . . .

Accuweather is forecasting that there will be record cold this winter for the US.

Winter of 2009-2010 Could Be Worst in 25 Years
Posted 2010-01-04
Nearly the entire eastern half of the United States is enduring bitterly cold temperatures not experienced since 1985. Even Florida, which has been hovering around freezing levels overnight recently, is also feeling the almost-nationwide chill.

"It'll be like the great winters of the '60s and '70s," said AccuWeather.com Chief Meteorologist and Expert Long Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi.

The last time a large swath of severely low temperatures struck the nation was in January 1985. That historic arctic outbreak had below-zero temperatures Fahrenheit stretching from Chicago eastward to New York City, and all the way south to Macon, Ga.

While Bastardi says the upcoming days will bring cold not seen since 1985 or 1982, he believes this winter is shaping up much that of like 1977-78. That winter, nearly all of the United States east of the Rockies had a cold October followed by a warm November, with the cold returning in December. . . . .

And this about China:

Much of China's manufacturing and farming heartland shivered on Wednesday under snow, sleet and unusual cold that drove south after dumping big snowfalls on Beijing and much of the country's north in past days.

Daytime temperatures in Shanghai and across the nearby coastal provinces of Jiangsu and Zhejiang skidded close to 0 degrees Celsius (32 F), and many areas inland were hit by snow or sleet, according to meteorological departments.

The harsh weather has pushed energy demand to new peaks, while transport snarls have slowed coal supplies, already low as power and coal companies haggle over prices.

The confluence of soaring demand, transport snarls and brinkmanship over coal prices could force power cuts and upset production in some big economic provinces, if conditions worsen.

"Conditions for thermal coal supply and shipment do not allow for optimism," said the China Electric Power News, mouthpiece of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission.

"In central and eastern China, power plants' inventories of thermal coal remain as tight as they were at the end of last year, and already strained shipment of coal has suffered more hardships after being hit by the snow storms." . . .

Economists explaining why bailouts cause those being bailout to take riskier behavior

From the WSJ, some pretty simple economics.

Over the past few days, economists here highlighted the many ways in which the lessons of the crisis have yet to sink in. Few think the U.S. and other governments have made needed repairs to the financial regulatory system. And some suggest governments' response has increased the chances of a repeat, making the banking system more crisis-prone, putting new strains on institutions such as the Federal Reserve and stretching government finances closer to the breaking point.

"Our response has made us more vulnerable to a bigger crisis," said Tom Sargent, a New York University economist. "It's distressing."

Banks present the most immediate worry. By providing massive bailouts to commercial banks and securities firms, the logic goes, governments have given bank executives a sort of catastrophe insurance -- and an incentive to take even greater risks than they did before the crisis. But it could take years for policy makers to impose the controls, such as tougher capital requirements, that would prevent the pain from spreading to taxpayers and the broader economy next time the banks get into trouble. . . .

Obama's Promise on Health Care Reform Transparency

“I respect what the Clintons tried to do in 1993 in moving health reform forward, but they made one really big mistake, and that is, they took all their people and all their experts and put them into a room, and then they closed the door. We will work on this process publicly, it will be on C-SPAN, it will be streaming over the net.” November 2008

Yet, another broken promise by President Obama.

"Gallup: Obama Begins 2nd Year w/Highest Disapproval Rating in Modern Era"

Gallup has these new polling numbers.

Ping pong process previously used rarely and for minor differences between houses

Realclearpolitics has this discussion on how unusual it has been to use the so-called "ping pong" process to reconcile different House and Senate versions of legislation.

In the 109th Congress (2005-2006), the last under GOP control, the House and Senate reconciled major bills through a conference committee 18 of 19 times, according to a report by congressional scholar Don Wolfensberger that was cited in an August 2008 Congressional Research Service analysis of the committee process. In the 110th (2007-2008), major bills were reconciled in conference just 11 of 19 times -- meaning Democrats negotiated eight times as many bills outside of conference as their Republican predecessors.

"While the conference bypass approach is just as legitimate under the rules as going to conference (and sometimes advisable when there are only minor differences to iron out), the procedure is more suspect when used on major bills on which numerous substantive disagreements exist between the houses," Wolfensberger wrote in his April 2008 column, printed in Roll Call. . . .

Massive amount of porn hidden in children's clips at Youtube

This is pretty disgusting.

Video-sharing website YouTube has removed hundreds of pornographic videos which were uploaded in what is believed to be a planned attack.

The material was uploaded under names of famous teenage celebrities such as Hannah Montana and Jonas Brothers.

Many started with footage of children's videos before groups of adults

performing graphic sex acts appeared on screen.

YouTube owner Google said it was aware and addressing the problem. . . .

It is also disappointing that 40 percent of the email to the BBC viewed this as just a fun joke.

Insurance companies say it makes sense for ships to have armed guards

This seems like an anti-pirate policy that works:

Shipping firms in the modern era have resisted packing heat even in areas where attacks are common. Their reasoning: A firefight leading to lawsuits, damaged goods or a sunken ship could cost hundreds of millions of dollars, a sum far exceeding the few million dollars in ransom that pirates usually demand.

But some shipping companies and fishing vessels are tacking away from a longstanding tradition of unarmed sailing amid escalating violence on the high seas. And pirates, who once used small arms as their weapon of choice, now resort to heavier armaments such as grenade launchers, shipping and security firms say. Besides, they note, recent armed conflicts have had some success repelling pirates.

Still, the majority of the international maritime community resists using lethal force because it "poses incredible logistical challenges, potentially violates many national and international laws, and is contrary to maritime conventions," says James Christodoulou, chief executive of Industrial Shipping Enterprises Corp. . . .

Piracy -- and mustering the arms to thwart it -- stretches back to the dawn of ocean trading. In the 16th century, commercial sailing ships "could be as well armed as warships," says Brian Lavery, author of "Ship: 5000 Years of Maritime History."

But in the 19th century, the end of monopolies like the East India Company meant greater competition, and amid the industrial revolution, there was a new emphasis on speed. Fast sailing vessels like the clipper, rushing to transact business, couldn't afford to be weighed down by ammo. And they could outrun pirates. . . .

Today, most fast ships, which cruise at speeds of 25 knots, can still outrun pirates. But oil tankers and bulk carriers, which typically cruise at 12 knots, aren't so nimble. Recent risk assessments by insurance companies and others have concluded that "sometimes the only way of keeping the ship safe is an armed guard," says Peter Hinchcliffe of the International Chamber of Shipping, another London-based trade group. . . .

Rates for a team of armed guards vary greatly, between $25,000 and over $100,000 for crossing the Gulf of Aden. They board ships at ports in Yemen, Djibouti or Oman. They hire local fishermen to take them out to the freighter that needs protection. After reaching the Suez canal, the men are flown back to the Gulf, or put on board a ship heading southward toward the Gulf of Aden.

The guards carry handguns, but the risk of a catastrophic escalation is minimal, says Maritime Asset Security & Training co-director Philip Cable. Pirates "are there to take the ship, not kill people." So far, MAST guards have helped fend off seven attacks, none involving weapons. . . .

About 9 Percent of South Dakota's Adults have a Concealed Handgun Permit

The number of permitted concealed handguns in South Dakota continues to increase. The South Dakota Secretary of State has this information:

Pierre, SD – Secretary of State Chris Nelson announced that a record number of concealed weapons permits were issued in South Dakota in 2009.

16,907 permits were issued by sheriffs throughout the state which was 15.6% more permits than the previous record set in 2008. Permits are valid for four years. The number issued in 2009 was 68% higher than the 10,062 permits which were issued in 2005.

Any person wishing to carry a weapon in a concealed manner must first obtain a permit from their local sheriff.

South Dakota has concealed weapons permit reciprocity with 26 other states allowing South Dakota permit holders to have their permits recognized when traveling in those states. This number has increased by three this past year. A complete listing of the reciprocity states can be found at www.sdsos.gov.

There are 55,770 concealed weapons permit holders in South Dakota.

Young Children who are spanked end up being happier and more successful

As far as these types of studies go, this sample of 2,600 people is relatively large.

Young children spanked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, a study has found.

According to the research, children spanked up to the age of 6 were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to college than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.

But children who continued to be spanked into adolescence showed clear behavioral problems.

Children’s groups and lawmakers in the UK have tried several times to have physical chastisement by parents outlawed, the Times of London reported. They claim it is a form of abuse that causes long-term harm to children and say banning it would send a clear signal that violence is unacceptable.

However, Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said her study showed there was insufficient evidence to deny parents the freedom to choose how they discipline their children.

“The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data,” said Gunnoe. “I think of spanking as a dangerous tool, but there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool. You just don’t use it for all your jobs.” . . .

"Democrats Considering Health Care-Immigration Deal To Overcome Key Sticking Point"

The Talking Points Memo (a liberal Democrat website) claims that there is a deal getting put together to pass the health care bill. Of course, this provides evidence that Democrats are negotiating secretly behind the scenes on the health care bill.

Lawmakers who want to extend health coverage to illegal immigrants will not block the passage of the final health care reform bill so long as the White House offers a substantive promise to start pushing comprehensive immigration legislation this year.

Democrats who want a comprehensive bill that reforms immigration law but also offers a pathway to citizenship have threatened to vote against health care if illegals aren't included in the new system, making immigration one of the sticking points as Democratic leaders negotiate the final details.

Democratic leadership aides believe that a firm White House promise of a comprehensive immigration bill will be enough to quell any House dissent.

TPMDC sources have been telling us that members won't admit it publicly but they are ready to concede on immigration in the health care bill. Political aides in the White House have told key parties in Congress that President Obama wants to see a bill this year, and negotiations are under way for how it would be written. . . .

Doesn't this deal violate at least the spirit of President Obama's promise to congress and the American people during his September 24 address to Congress?

Vote fraud about to be completely out of control

John Fund has this very depressing prediction.

In January, Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank will propose universal voter registration. What is universal voter registration? It means all of the state laws on elections will be overriden by a federal mandate. The feds will tell the states: 'take everyone on every list of welfare that you have, take everyone on every list of unemployed you have, take everyone on every list of property owners, take everyone on every list of driver's license holders and register them to vote regardless of whether they want to be...

Adjusted versus Raw temperature data for Australia

A discussion on this can be found here.

New piece at the Washington Times

The forgotten virtue of firearms: TV cameras miss how guns save lives

What a change: "SEN. REID CONDEMNS PACKING DEALS IN A MANAGERS AMENDMENT TO PASS LEGISLATION"

A copy of the video can be seen here.

Concealed Carry in Riverside County California just got easier

This new rule (at least to the extent that the Sheriff obeys it) would move the county in a decidedly right-to-carry direction.

An effort by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to make it easier for residents to carry concealed firearms isn't likely to change policy, the Sheriff's Department said.

In a 3-1 vote in November, supervisors passed a resolution asking the sheriff to consider applications for permits based solely on "personal defense."

Supervisor Jeff Stone, author of the resolution, pegged the issue to the potential release of thousands of California inmates as part of a plan to meet a federal mandate to reduce the state's prison population. . . .

Supervisor Bob Buster was the lone vote against the resolution. He said he believed that existing regulations were adequate.

Applicants must show they need a concealed carry permit. That could mean they have a job that requires travel to dangerous areas, or an order of protection against a stalker or assailant.

Stone's resolution would allow Riverside residents to get a permit for "personal protection." . . .

More confirmation that the Dems will do the Health Care Conference in Secret

Dems to secretly put together the health care bill in conference.

Despite their claims to the contrary, the way that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have handled the healthcare bill has been anything but transparent. And, if the left-wing blogosphere is to be believed, the two congressional leaders intend to keep the deliberations secret as they try to merge the House and Senate versions of the legislation into something that will pass both chambers.

The Talking Points Memo website reported Monday that Democrats in both the House and Senate are saying the process will likely follow the path of the House taking up the Senate-passed legislation, amending it and sending it back to the Senate, which will have to pass it again. "This process cuts out the Republicans," a House Democratic aide told TPM, indicating the congressional majority intended to make sure the Republican minority would "not have a motion to recommit opportunity."

It also, say those who are following the issue, allows Pelosi to avoid having to cut deals with problematic House Democrats like Michigan's Bart Stupak, who has promised to do what he can to scuttle the final bill if it provides for federal funding of abortions. . . .

How to make banks riskier

For some reason many politicians don't seem to understand what diversification means. Just as economists advise individuals to hold diversified portfolios, the same reason applies to other institutions. Returning to the Depression era rules, as McCain and Cantwell propose, will make the system riskier.

The bipartisan duo’s bill would reinstate the Depression-era law that built a wall between commercial banking and the riskier activities of investment banking. The separation — originally set up in the Glass-Steagall Act — was repealed in 1999.

But reinstating Glass-Steagall has become something of a rallying cry among progressives, as well as some conservatives. They believe that allowing banks to provide all services to all people creates the very sort of “too big to fail” institutions that threatened the stability of the global financial order in 2008. . . .

With a trillion dollar health care bill heading towards approval, I thought that it might be useful to remember what Obama promised

Obama's health care promise included:

Access to Health Insurance
Supports a national health insurance program for people who do not have employer-provided health care and who do not qualify for other existing federal programs. Would mandate health insurance coverage for children but not for adults.
Would require employers that do not provide health coverage for employees to pay into his proposed national health insurance program.
The plan's $50 billion to $65 billion price tag would be paid for by discontinuing Bush's tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 a year.

This is both a lot more expensive than Obama promised. He is also breaking his promise that it wouldn't be mandatory.

Mexico is one country that could really use a right-to-carry law

Mexico has always had a much higher murder rate than the US. But with the drug gangs even what had once been safe areas are no longer safe. With gun bans, it seems like only the drug gang members are carrying around guns.

They were aware of the dangers. Agustin Roberto "Bobby" Salcedo and his wife, Betzy, knew that this town, like much of Mexico, was no longer the tranquil spot it had been.

"I've been coming regularly," Salcedo's widow said Saturday of her hometown. "We knew how bad it had become."

And yet, the Salcedos ventured out for a few beers the night before New Year's Eve.

"We were just going out with a group of friends," Betzy Salcedo said, speaking slowly and casting her eyes downward. "You are careful, you look around, but you never think this kind of thing can happen . . . to innocent people. We were having a good time. Then we were in the mouth of the wolf."

Hours later, Bobby Salcedo was dead, hauled away from the bar with five other men, their bodies dumped in a dried-grass field on the outskirts of town.

Arrangements were being made Saturday to repatriate Salcedo's body. The 33-year-old, who was born and raised in the Los Angeles area, was an assistant principal and school board member in El Monte.

His slaying underscores the random volatility of the violence in Mexico and the ease with which the pain it causes can seep past the country's borders. . . .

Thanks to Ben Zycher for this link.

How health insurance stock prices have changed over the last two years

Click on figure to make it larger.

How health insurance stock prices have changed relative to the S&P 500

Click on figure to make it larger.

Top 10 Conservative Movies of the past decade

Nile Gardiner has put in his list for the top 10. I would be curious what readers think should be included on the list.

1. Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (Peter Weir, 2003)
2. Black Hawk Down (Ridley Scott, 2001)
3. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Peter Jackson, 2001, 2002, 2003)
4. Gladiator (Ridley Scott, 2000)
5. The Pursuit of Happyness (Gabriele Muccino, 2006)
6. The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, 2008)
7. The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow, 2009)
8. Hotel Rwanda (Terry George, 2004)
9. The Lives of Others (Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, 2006)
10. 300 (Zack Snyder, 2007)

Will Virginia get rid of one handgun a month regulation?

Virginia State Delegate Scott Lingamfelter (R - Prince William & Fauquier Counties) has pre-filed House Bill 49 for the 2010 Virginia General Assembly session to repeal the current one-gun-a-month limit. Right now only 3 other states ration handgun purchases: California, Maryland, and New Jersey (South Carolina repealed their gun rationing law several years ago). Back in 1993, Governor-elect Bob McDonnell (R) voted for the one handgun a month law when he was in the state House of Delegates, but he has now signaled that he would back repeal. The Second Edition of More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns both looked at one-gun-a-month rules, but found no benefits from these laws.

Gang member's advice on how to cut down on murder: "Buy a gun"

This article also points out something that I have been saying for sometime that a large portion of crime are drug gang related. I would point out again that just as gangs can get the drugs to sell they can get the guns that they need to protect those drugs from other gangs.

Gang violence boosts death tally
A spike in the number of deadly gangland quarrels pushed last year's homicide count to 60
by Lou Michel
NEWS STAFF REPORTER
Updated: January 03, 2010,

. . . "Buy a gun," a member of a recently busted inner-city gang told The Buffalo News last week when asked what could be done to curtail homicides. "Hey, I'm just being honest. You asked."

Tall and good looking, the young man half smiled, shrugged and seemed to disappear into his oversized winter coat.

Twice the victim of gunfire — a fact a street cop confirmed — the young man said he views self-protection as the best means of avoiding death on the streets.

The gangs that fight over territory and drugs, he said, are often not well organized. . . .

Thanks to Peter K for sending me this link.

New Airport Scanners would not have stopped Christmas Day Bomb Attempt

I suppose that this isn't too surprising. The question is: how invasive are you willing to be? Are we going to pat down everyone's crotch? Or do full body searches? The problem is also that liquids that are completely harmless by themselves can cause real problems when combined.

The explosive device smuggled in the clothing of the Detroit bomb suspect would not have been detected by body-scanners set to be introduced in British airports, an expert on the technology warned last night.

The claim severely undermines Gordon Brown's focus on hi-tech scanners for airline passengers as part of his review into airport security after the attempted attack on Flight 253 on Christmas Day.

The Independent on Sunday has also heard authoritative claims that officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Home Office have already tested the scanners and were not persuaded that they would work comprehensively against terrorist threats to aviation. . . .

And experts in the US said airport "pat-downs" – a method used in hundreds of airports worldwide – were ineffective and would not have stopped the suspect boarding the plane. . . .

The White House Rewriting History on Yemen

The Obama administration just can't seem to admit that they had made a mistake.

The New York Times on December 12, 2009:

But the senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was discussing sensitive security matters, said the government was gaining confidence in Yemen’s willingness to handle returning detainees after months of “intense” talks under the Obama administration, as well as counterterrorism assistance from the United States that dates back to the Bush years.

“Over the past year and even longer, we have invested in the Yemeni security and intelligence services, in terms of training and equipment and in terms of continuing to work with them on a variety of counterterrorism programs and making sure they are firm in their commitment against Al Qaeda,” the official said. “That has given us greater confidence that the Yemeni government and president would deal with this issue very seriously and was not going to ignore the potential security risks associated with returning detainees.” . . .

The New York Times on January 1, 2010:

But a senior administration official said Thursday that Mr. Obama’s interagency team had already decided quietly several weeks ago that the security situation in Yemen was too volatile to transfer any more detainees beyond six who were sent home in December. The government concluded it had to release those six because it was about to lose habeas corpus hearings in court that would order them freed.
As for the rest, "we all agreed we couldn’t send people back because of the security situation," said the official, who like others requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. . . .
The administration will re-examine the question in late 2010, when an Illinois prison is ready to take remaining Guantánamo detainees, the official said. . . .

Of course the Obama administration had just transferred 12 more Gitmo detainees to Yemen and other countries (six went to Yemen) right before Christmas. The Obama administration ignored various pleas from different congressmen.

The announcement came after Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., sent a request to President Obama on Friday to stop the release. The nearly 100 Yemenis remaining at the Cuba facility make up the largest group there. But releasing more detainees to Yemen is raising concerns, because of the country's security problems and lack of resources.

"I have written you and others in your administration on three occasions imploring you to halt the release of detainees to these countries due to the deteriorating security situations and the dangerous potential for recidivism," Wolf wrote in his letter.

"I am deeply concerned that American lives will be at risk because of this terrible decision," he said. . . .

Stimulus as tar baby

Remember Sarah Palin's, Haley Barbour's, Bobby Jindal's, Rick Perry's, and Mitch Daniels' opposition? The Governors who tried to turn down this money are now viewed as financial geniuses. The WSJ has this:

First, in most state capitals the stimulus enticed state lawmakers to spend on new programs rather than adjusting to lean times. They added health and welfare benefits and child care programs. Now they have to pay for those additions with their own state's money. . . .

Second, stimulus dollars came with strings attached that are now causing enormous budget headaches. Many environmental grants have matching requirements, so to get a federal dollar, states and cities had to spend a dollar even when they were facing huge deficits. The new construction projects built with federal funds also have federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements that raise state building costs to pay inflated union salaries.

Worst of all, at the behest of the public employee unions, Congress imposed "maintenance of effort" spending requirements on states. These federal laws prohibit state legislatures from cutting spending on 15 programs, from road building to welfare, if the state took even a dollar of stimulus cash for these purposes.

One provision prohibits states from cutting Medicaid benefits or eligibility below levels in effect on July 1, 2008. [At the peak of benefits.] . . .

Guns in Washington DC Wizards Locker Room

No one was harmed, but it appears as if at least two of the Washington Wizard players had handguns with them in Washington DC.

NBA all-star Gilbert Arenas and his Washing ton Wizards teammate Javaris Crittenton drew guns on each other in the team's locker room during a Christmas Eve dispute over a gambling debt, The Post has learned. . . .

A top players-union official said he was shocked by the allegations. "This is unprecedented in the history of sports," said Player's Association Executive Director Billy Hunter. "I've never heard of players pulling guns on each other in a locker room."

Of course, this is raising the whole issue of athletes with guns again. Some anecdotal evidence indicates that a lot of players own guns.

The Nets, to a man, swear they've never seen guns in their locker room -- but some estimate that as many as 75 percent of NBA players own them.
"I guess they feel like they need some sort of protection," guard Devin Harris said yesterday, guessing that 60 to 75 percent keep at least one gun at home.
Forward Jarvis Hayes played for four years with Washington Wizards star Gilbert Arenas, who's under investigation for taking a gun into his locker room. He called 75 percent "a fair number."
"I didn't think he'd bring a gun to the locker room," Hayes said. "When I first heard it, I thought he might've been playing, but he wasn't, apparently."
"There's a time and a place for everything," said guard Keyon Dooling. "On the job is not it."

Some in the media are bashing athletes for having guns.

Out of such fears, athletes arm themselves, ignoring the good sense of Paul Pierce, the Celtics star who was the victim of a multiple stabbing at a Boston nightclub -- but still chooses to take a security person with him, rather than his licensed handgun.
A limo driver is dead and the fate of ex-NBA star Jayson Williams still is in legal limbo over a horrific, accidental firing at Williams' New Jersey mansion eight years ago. And yet athletes such as Allen Iverson, Sebastian Telfair and Delonte West still have been arrested on gun charges out of exaggerated needs to arm themselves.

Some NBA players carry concealed handguns:

A tower of power, he stands 7 feet 1 inch, weighs 325 pounds, and bears a tattoo of Superman's signature "S" on his massive left arm. Yet NBA great Shaquille O'Neal protects himself off the basketball court with more than his physical might and inky bond with the Man of Steel.

He is licensed to carry a concealed weapon. . . .

Cashier gives robber everything, but is still murdered

This video ends right before the robber fatally shots the cashier.

How appropriate is it for Bill Clinton to get millions of dollars from governments that are dealing directly with his wife as Secretary of State

Is it appropriate that foreign governments give money to Bill Clinton why they are dealing directly with his wife as Secretary of State? Is it appropriate that the exact amount of the donations not be reported publicly?

Foreign countries including Saudi Arabia and Norway gave millions of dollars to former President Bill Clinton's charity as Hillary Rodham Clinton served her first year as President Barack Obama's secretary of state.
A donor list released on New Year's Day by the William J. Clinton Foundation shows that Saudi Arabia and Norway each donated somewhere between $10 million to $25 million to the former president's charity. . . .
The William J. Clinton Foundation works in the United States and around the world on such issues as health care, particularly HIV/AIDS; climate change; and economic development. It also runs the Clinton Presidential Center in Little Rock, Ark., which includes Clinton's presidential library. . . .

The comparison to other former presidents is quite the same as their wives are not still holding powerful government positions. It is true: "The Clintons were under no legal obligation to identify foundation donors." But it sure raises questions.

New Year New Laws

Regarding texting:

“It’s the hottest safety issue in the states right now by far,” said Jonathan Adkins, spokesman for the Governors Highway Safety Association, which represents state highway safety agencies. . . .

Court Cases let Police Arrest permit holders

It doesn't seem like these cases will be very common, but they do impose a real cost on those who carry permits. That said, I do understand a police officer's desire to be careful. Checking on whether someone has a permit seems quite reasonable, as long as it isn't done to simply harass permit holders. But the Massachusetts case involved holding the permit holder AND then taking away his gun, which goes too far.

One from Georgia:

Christopher Raissi holds a Georgia firearms license and frequently carries a handgun concealed. On October 14, 2008, he was carrying concealed on MARTA. He did not know that a MARTA police officer observing the parking lot had seen him holstering and concealing his firearm while still at his car. Therefore, he was surprised when he was surrounded by police officers who yelled "Police!" and ordered him to stop. The officers then seized his firearm from his holster and began questioning him, asking, according to the court's written opinion, "[W]hat are you doing with a gun?"
After seeing Raissi's firearms license and driver's license, the officers ran background checks on Raissi and held him, according to Raissi, for half an hour. The officers transported Raissi to a locked area out of the public eye before finally releasing him and returning his firearm and other property.
In the ruling today, Judge Thrash held that merely carrying a concealed firearm justifies such detention and disarmament. He wrote in his opinion that "possession of a firearms license is an affirmative defense to, not an element of, the crimes of boarding [MARTA] with a concealed weapon and carrying a concealed weapon."

"After Raissi concealed his handgun and started walking to toward the MARTA station, he had committed all of the acts required for the crime of boarding with a concealed weapon and the crime of carrying a concealed weapon."

As a result, Judge Thrash concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion that Raissi was committing two crimes. As a result, the officers were justified in using force to detain him, and the "officers were entitled to take Raissi's handgun because they knew Raissi had concealed it on his person and would have easy access to it while they questioned him." The officers were also entitled to ask him for his social security number and transport him to a locked area out of the public view. . . .

Another case from Massachusetts.

The case stems from a lawyer who sued a police officer after he was detained for lawfully carrying a concealed weapon while in possession of a license to carry concealed. According to the case opinion, the lawyer, Greg Schubert, had a pistol concealed under his suit coat, and Mr. Schubert was walking in what the court described as a "high crime area." At some point a police officer, J.B. Stern, who lived up to his last name, caught a glimpse of the attorney's pistol, and he leapt out of his patrol car "in a dynamic and explosive manner" with his gun drawn, pointing it at the attorney's face.
Officer Stern "executed a pat-frisk," and Mr. Schubert produced his license to carry a concealed weapon. He was disarmed and ordered to stand in front of the patrol car in the hot sun. At some point, the officer locked him in the back seat of the police car and delivered a lecture. Officer Stern "partially Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat." . . .
The court further held that the officer was entitled to confirm the validity of a "facially valid" license to carry a concealed weapon. The problem for Officer Stern was that there is no way to do so in Massachusetts, where this incident occurred. As a result, the court held that Officer Stern "sensibly opted to terminate the stop and release Schubert, but retain the weapon." . . .

Governor McDonnell comes out for ending gubernatorial term limits

It is pretty hard to find any discussions by Virginia's new Governor, Robert McDonnell, when he ran for Governor about ending Virginia's term limit for governor. At best it was hardly at the top of his list of goals during the campaign.

Robert F. McDonnell hasn't served a day as Virginia's chief executive, but the governor-elect already says he will work to overturn a Virginia law forbidding governors from serving consecutive terms. . . .

None of these stories had any mentions of McDonnell trying to end term limits last year.

"Can Republicans Win Ted Kennedy's Senate Seat?" Very likely not

Sean Trende has this analysis at RealClearPolitics. While it would be nice and extremely important if the Republicans could get this seat, the Republican candidate is not such a strong candidate and Massachusetts is a strong Democrat state. Mr. Trende thinks that even with the Republican trend this year, the vote might be "in the 54%-46% range."

Treasury officials admit that Government program is making Housing Woes worse

Despite its qualifications, even the NY Times recognizes that one of the government stimulus programs hasn't worked and may indeed have made things worse, just delaying the inevitable. Even more noteworthy is that behind the scenes people in the Obama administration are admitting it isn't working. It would be nice when they acknowledge that the rest of the stimulus package has made things worse.

Some experts argue the program has impeded economic recovery by delaying a wrenching yet cleansing process through which borrowers give up unaffordable homes and banks fully reckon with their disastrous bets on real estate, enabling money to flow more freely through the financial system.

“The choice we appear to be making is trying to modify our way out of this, which has the effect of lengthening the crisis,” said Kevin Katari, managing member of Watershed Asset Management, a San Francisco-based hedge fund. “We have simply slowed the foreclosure pipeline, with people staying in houses they are ultimately not going to be able to afford anyway.”

Mr. Katari contends that banks have been using temporary loan modifications under the Obama plan as justification to avoid an honest accounting of the mortgage losses still on their books. Only after banks are forced to acknowledge losses and the real estate market absorbs a now pent-up surge of foreclosed properties will housing prices drop to levels at which enough Americans can afford to buy, he argues.

“Then the carpenters can go back to work,” Mr. Katari said. “The roofers can go back to work, and we start building housing again. If this drips out over the next few years, that whole sector of the economy isn’t going to recover.”

The Treasury Department publicly maintains that its program is on track. “The program is meeting its intended goal of providing immediate relief to homeowners across the country,” a department spokeswoman, Meg Reilly, wrote in an e-mail message.

But behind the scenes, Treasury officials appear to have concluded that growing numbers of delinquent borrowers simply lack enough income to afford their homes and must be eased out. . . .

As to the benefits of the plan:

Whatever the merits of its plans, the administration has clearly failed to reverse the foreclosure crisis.

In 2008, more than 1.7 million homes were “lost” through foreclosures, short sales or deeds in lieu of foreclosure, according to Moody’s Economy.com. This year, more than two million homes were lost, and Economy.com expects that next year’s number will swell to 2.4 million. . . .

UPDATE: Record Plunge in November Existing Home Sales

Pending home sales unexpectedly plunged in November, according to a report issued Tuesday by the National Association of Realtors, posting their largest drop on record after several months of positive gains for a closely-watched indicator of housing market activity.

According to the industry group, November pending home sales activity dropped by 16% to a reading of 96.0, compared with the previous month’s reading of 114.3. The drop was much larger than expected by Wall Street, which was looking for a dip of 2% for the indicator for November.

It was the largest drop, point-wise, since the industry group started the index in 2001, dragging the indicator to its lowest level since June. . . .

Lawrence Yun, NAR’s chief economist, said activity was expected to slow in the winter but he expects it to pick up again as the new April deadline approaches. . . .

Trouble for TSA nominee

Erroll Southers has some problems with what he told the Senate committee that he testified before.

The White House nominee to lead the Transportation Security Administration gave Congress misleading information about incidents in which he inappropriately accessed a federal database, possibly in violation of privacy laws, documents obtained by The Washington Post show. . . . .

The committee approved his nomination Nov. 19. One day later, Southers wrote to Lieberman and Collins saying his first account was incorrect. After reviewing documents, he wrote, he recalled that he had twice conducted the database searches himself, downloaded confidential law enforcement records about his wife's boyfriend and passed information on to the police department employee, the letter said. . . .

In questioning before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Southers has said he understands the need to balance security and privacy. Said Collins: "You have taken responsibility for your actions. You've acknowledged your mistake in the personal conversation that we had in my office. It is important that the public have confidence that government officials will not misuse the authority that they have."

She added: "If you're confirmed, you're going to have the access to databases that have personal information on many, many individuals, such as through the secure flight program, and it's going to be important for the public to have confidence that you would not, in any way, misuse your access to the personal information in those databases. So, let me first ask you: Have you ever in the past misused your access to databases that the government maintains, other than this one incident that led to this censure?"

"No, Senator, I have not," Southers replied.

Collins continued: "Do you commit today that you will respect the privacy and civil liberties concerns that people have with regard to the personal information in those databases?"

"Yes, Senator, I do," Southers said.

Happy New Year

I wish everyone a happy and successful New Year!

Dems finding it very hard to get strong recruits to run for office in 2010

Surprisingly some of these Democrats were actually in the process of organizing and running for the office when they decided to back out. I don't know if this rush to the exists might still impact the health care vote.

Democrats have lost yet another touted recruit, this time in Kansas.

State Sen. Laura Kelly (D) just announced her withdrawal from the race to face Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.). She becomes the fifth formidable recruit to bow out in recent weeks.

“I have been forced to make a decision between honoring the pledge I made to the people in my Senate district and my firm conviction that the people of the 2nd congressional district deserve a truly independent voice in Congress," Kelly said in a statement.

“This has been a very hard decision, but it is the right one.”

Kelly joins several recent dropouts, including businessman Jack McDonald, a well-funded challenger to Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) who announced last week that he wouldn't run. The others are Ohio state Rep. Todd Book, who was running against Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio); former Tennessee Commerce and Insurance Commissioner Paula Flowers, who was running for Rep. Zach Wamp's (R-Tenn.) seat; and Solana Beach City Councilman Dave Roberts, who was running against Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.).

Both McDonald and Kelly were cited in a late October memo from DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) that touted the committee's recruiting successes.

On top of that, Democrats have lost four incumbents in vulnerable districts to retirement recently. It has been a distinct shift, taking five seats off the map on offense and adding four on defense.