Decline in Care Due to Obamacare

When frustrated Americans point to the failures of Obamacare, liberal operatives and journalists point to the increase in healthcare enrollments of poor people. What they don't tell you is that these new, low-income enrollees are placed on Medicaid and can't find a doctor who takes Medicaid patients.  They look for healthcare, but can't find it.

They also don't tell you that, except for the rich, everyone else is also suffering:

Gallup: Peak Number Of Americans Delaying Medical Care Over Costs

One in three Americans has put off seeking medical treatment in 2014 due to high costs, according to Gallup — the highest percentage since Gallup began asking the question in 2001.

Thirty-three percent of Americans have delayed medical treatment for themselves or their families because of the costs they’d have to pay, according to the survey. Obamacare, of course, had promised that it would help make health care more affordable for everyone, but the number of people who can’t afford a trip to the doctor has actually risen three points since 2013, before most Obamacare provisions took effect.

The hardest-hit: the middle-class. Americans with an annual household income of between $30,000 and $75,000 began delaying medical care over costs more in 2014, up to 38 percent in 2014 from 33 percent last year; among households that earn above $75,000, 28 percent delayed care this year, compared to just 17 percent last year.

The lowest-income section, some of whom can take part in Medicaid and who are more likely to qualify for significant premium and cost-sharing subsidies on an Obamacare exchange, are less likely to delay care this year. Now, 35 percent of those who earn under $30,000 a year are putting off seeking medical care, down from 43 percent last year.

It’s a remarkable shift: after Obamacare’s redistribution of wealth, the middle class is actually delaying medical care due to high costs at a higher rate than the poorest section of the country, which is highly subsidized by taxpayers.

The growing problem could have serious consequences for the middle-class. Twice as many people (22 percent) have delayed treatment for serious illnesses than than for smaller problems (11 percent).

Part of the problem is an ongoing shift towards higher deductibles and out-of-pocket costs, while health insurance premiums continue to rise all the same. The trend, which existed to some extent before Obamacare, increased in intensity with the onset of the health-care law.

World's Stupidest People

I admit it: I love Judge Judy. At least once a week a Pitbull dog owner shows up as a defendant on her show to defend his or her Pitbull that has mauled or maimed another innocent person. The excuses and explanations they present are always ludicrous, and, often they allow their dog to play with small children. If they read the Drudge Report they would see numerous items where previously peaceful Pitbulls suddenly viciously attacked a child, inflicting serious damage. If they read the NY Times, they may have noted that 40% of all reported dog attacks are from this one breed. I think Pitbull owners are the world's stupidest people.

The Social Contract with Owners of Dangerous Dogs

Sierra Rayne May 1, 2014 AmericanThinker (excerpts)

The news that a one-year-old girl recently had her nose bitten off by a pit bull attack in Ottawa has rekindled the always simmering debate over banning these dangerous animals. Barbara Kay -- a social conservative commentator in the Canadian media -- has written two good columns on the subject, calling for an enforced ban on dangerous dogs. The statistics Kay presents are alarming. Pit bulls are such an inherently dangerous breed that just brushing off calls for their banning is simply irresponsible.

As the years go by, the number of dog attacks continue to add up. In the United States alone, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provide the following data: "About 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year. Almost one in five of those who are bitten, about 885,000, require medical attention for dog bite-related injuries; half of these are children. In 2012, more than 27,000 people underwent reconstructive surgery as a result of being bitten by dogs."...

Action should be taken against dangerous dogs. The following two policy options are available: (1) ban the ownership of any and all dangerous dogs, or (2) hold any and all owners of dogs responsible for any and all illegal acts that their pets commit to the extent equivalent as if the owner had committed the crime(s) themselves with intent and under aggravating circumstances.

Some will argue that all dogs can be dangerous, and that we cannot rationally restrict our bans to just one breed of dog. True that may be, in such a case we apparently need to ban the ownership of any and all dogs. Let the dog owners decide which option they would like to pursue. Ideally, we make such decisions based on an intellectually rigorous analysis of breed-related incident statistics. Using the statistics Kay has assembled in her articles, the primary culprit is pit bulls and a few other notable -- but much less problematic -- breeds.

Of course, we shouldn't restrict ourselves to just dogs. Owners should be fully responsible for the actions of all dangerous pets, so all dangerous pets should be banned (again, based on an analysis of species-related incident statistics). Those familiar with the law recognize that blunt instruments very often make bad law, and many readers can clearly appreciate the dangers that arise from the restriction of liberties for law-abiding citizens.

Bans are very blunt instruments, and generally bad law where an activity does not necessarily lead to a criminal act. And by no means is it unavoidable that owning a dangerous animal leads to that dangerous animal engaging in a criminal act. Thus, bans are not the preferred choice from a theoretical perspective, but they may be the only practical option available to deal with the problem.

Option (2) is preferable, as laws should always be constructed to focus on those engaged in criminal activity, capturing as few innocent parties as possible. Deterrence works, and by making penalties sufficiently harsh, illegal activities are minimized. What does this mean in practice? If a dog kills someone, the owner should be punished as though the owner had killed the other person with intent (the default is first-degree murder). No exceptions. If a dog attacks someone using less than lethal force, the owner should be considered to have engaged in the equivalent activity under aggravating circumstances. If a dog causes property damage of any form to another individual, the owner should be considered to have engaged in such activity with intent and under aggravating circumstances.

Dog owners will cry foul, as they do on almost all issues (a particularly whiny species they are). However, owning a dog (or other animal) is not a requirement to exist within civil society, with the exception of those who employ animals for a very narrowly restricted suite of purely legitimate disability reasons. Some will claim they have a fundamental right to own a dog if they so wish. Fine, but then such owners have a responsibility to be fully accountable for any and all actions of the animal they wish to own.

And, in return for someone's right to own a potentially dangerous animal, all other citizens should be granted the unrestricted right to own firearms in order to protect themselves against attacks from such animals. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you get to own a potentially dangerous weapon (e.g., a pit bull) and take it out in public, so do I. Except my choice of potentially dangerous weapon will be a handgun as defense against your potentially dangerous animal weapon.

Will the courts uphold option (2)? No chance, at least in Canada. The Canadian court system is far too conciliatory towards many illegal activities that there is zero likelihood it would uphold any form of legislation deeming the actions of an animal to be those of its owner with intent and aggravating circumstances. One suspects this judicial weakness is a common problem in the West. As a result, despite the theoretical preference for option (2), it is practically unworkable within our current and reasonably foreseeable future legal systems, requiring we pursue option (1). Namely, any and all dangerous dogs should be banned. We can start with pit bulls, and extend the bans if necessary.

George Zimmerman and Me

I’m sure I’m not alone in having some of the thoughts I had during George Zimmerman’s ordeal in Orlando after the tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin.  My main thought was, “If I ever have to defend myself against an African-American trying to maim or kill me, will I have to go through what Zimmerman went through?”  After all, if you are aware of the crime statistics, it’s almost a certainty that any criminal event threatening me will be carried out by an African-American youth.

Will the President of the United States publicly take the side of the African-American; will NBC and ABC doctor the 911 call to make me out to be a racist; will the actions of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton cause the investigative results of the local police force to be over-ruled (only to be confirmed during the trial), and all the powers of the government arraigned against me regardless of the facts?

Mr. Zimmerman is much in the news these days because he has been acting completely out-of-character with the testimony several witnesses gave at his trial.  I believe Mr. Zimmerman may have developed PTSD during his terrible ordeal similar to the malady suffered by many soldiers in a combat situation.  I feel sorry for Mr. Zimmerman and hope he can get help and have some semblance of a normal life one day.

A Nuclear Iran and Obamacare

I hate to keep harping on President Obama’s failures and incompetence, but it’s an elephant in the room.   I tried to stop months ago, but it is impossible.

The question now is, will President Obama’s legacy be that he destroyed the American healthcare system while simultaneously enabling Iran to possess nuclear weapons.

It appears that the French have, at least for a time, stopped an agreement with Iran that appears to be the definition of foolhardiness, but that won’t last long.  Israel has been abandoned by Obama, and is drawing support from, incredibly, the Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan, who also fear a nuclear-armed Iran.

A nuclear-armed Iran will not only threaten the Middle East, but will be able to blackmail many European countries (especially since Obama cancelled the missile defense system scheduled for installation in Poland and the Czech Republic).  And one day they may come for us, if they haven’t already drawn us into mortal danger.

Obama has already botched our relations with Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, Poland and the Czech Republic; he has screwed up royally in Iraq (throwing away all that was gained by our blood and treasure), Libya (Benghazi) and in Syria (where Assad is now in firm control).

How could anyone do this much harm to America’s interests?  We can not trust this man with anything.

 

Daily Star  November 11, 2013 (Excerpt)

 

DUBAI: Tension between Sunni and Shiite Muslims is the biggest threat to world security, Iran's foreign minister said in comments published on Monday, accusing Sunni Arab countries of "fanning the flames" of sectarian conflict.

The increasingly sectarian civil war in Syria has drawn in regional powers with Shiite Iran backing President Bashar Assad and Sunni Gulf Arab states and mainly Sunni Turkey helping the rebels. The conflict threatens to spill over into countries split between Sunnis and Shiites such as Lebanon and Iraq.

The sectarian tension is "the most serious security threat not only to the region but to the world at large", Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told the BBC.

"I think we need to come to understand that a sectarian divide in the Islamic world is a threat to all of us."

 

Last Blog Post

This blog started out as a letter to my grandchildren, and it will end on the same note.  My original letter nine years ago came about as a reaction to the nonsense I heard some of them say at the dinner table – nonsense put there by leftist teachers who hate this country because of their own guilt and lack of understanding of history and human nature.

In order to write a meaningful blog post, one has to keep up with world and national events reported on the news, but the news is so dismaying and disgusting lately that I can’t stand to hear it any more.  Everything seems to be coming apart for Americans: our leadership in the world is over, our economy is in permanent recession, any respect and fear of us held by jihadist Muslims is gone, the greatest healthcare system in the world is being systematically destroyed (including doctors abandoning Medicare because of payment cuts as funds are shifted to pay for Obamacare), all the progress made in race relations is disappearing as Obama cleverly uses symbolism to urge blacks to hate whites (and poor people to hate rich people).

Women are being told that Republicans want to kill them, churches are being told that they cannot practice their religion (abortion and contraception), employees of Homeland Security are being told that Americans who love liberty and states rights are more dangerous than militant Muslims, citizens are being fed the nonsense that an Army officer with jihadist ties who shouts Allahu Akbar while slaughtering 13 soldiers is not a terrorist, and that al-Qaeda has been squashed.

I haven’t even mentioned the so-called, “phony” scandals such as Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS corruption of the 2012 election, the harassment of FoxNews reporters, the backing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt – or the knowledge that just about everything that comes out of the mouths of liberal politicians and operatives is a lie.

I can’t stand it anymore.

 

TO MY GRANDCHILDREN (6/2004)
 

To someone my age, grandchildren are terribly important because they represent the future. I’m writing this because I want to make sure that my grandchildren understand some things that will be very important to their future — and to their childrens’ future.

Any American who studies history — whether ancient history or recent history — should realize two major lessons from history: Lesson l. You and I and the ordinary working person in this country have a quality of life that in most of the world has been available only to a very few, extremely wealthy persons of royalty. Of the billions of people born since the world began, almost everyone has lived wretched, short lives of incredible poverty and despair. This widespread quality of life you and I have is of recent origin and came about because of the unique qualities of American civilization —freedom, capitalism and inventiveness.  Lesson 2. Every great civilization — the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Spaniards, the Turks and others — every one of them has eventually disintegrated or disappeared. Today we live during the great American civilization. Will it also disappear?

Sometimes great civilizations ended because of military defeats, but more often, they ended because of intemal decay. You might say that they committed suicide. During your lifetime you will encounter many people who are mentally sick in some way. Some are criminals who will hurt you if you let them. It’s pretty easy to stay out of their way. But some are sick in more subtle and devious ways. They don’t understand history. They don’t understand that American freedoms and American traditions and the

bloodshed of American patriots not only provided the wonderful life we have — but has offered hope to all the rest of the world. These people are Americans, but, inexplicably, they hate America.

Yes we have made mistakes, and sometimes we have been forced to choose the lesser of two evils, but unlike every other civilization, America has always tried to help. After we won World War II, the most terrible war in history, we offered a hand of friendship to our enemies. Instead of

ransacking their countries, as all previous victors throughout history had done, we helped them to rebuild and taught them how to live in freedom.

However, these people who have this kind of mental illness don’t see this; they only see the mistakes we have made. They are like some people who, if you give them a rose, will only see the thorns. The problem is, these

Americans with this kind of mental illness, may be the ones who destroy our civilization — if we let them.

Who are these people? Back in the l97O’s a Senator, Senator Church, who headed an important committee and who for some reason hated the CIA so much he not only persuaded the Congress to weaken the CIA (possibly

why the 9/11 attacks succeeded), but he published the names and addresses of CIA agents around the world. This is very personal for me because a near classmate at my high school in Providence, RI, the CIA Station Chief in Athens, Greece, Richard Welch, was murdered shortly thereafter on the front steps of his home. Also during the 1970’s a man named Daniel Ellsbergh stole and published military secrets that undermined public confidence in our military at a time when American service men and women were under fire.

During Desert Storm in the l990’s two CNN TV broadcasters, Peter Arnett and Bernard Shaw, actually broadcasted from Baghdad while our men and women risked their lives. Their television programs gave information to the Iraqis and could have cost American lives. We also have many people in our country who seem willing to undermine our society in order to make money or to further some agenda that may arise out of their form of sickness. We have movie, television, radio and music producers who constantly try to expose young people to more and more violence and near-pornography in order to increase the shock value of their products and make more money for themselves.

If this wasn’t bad enough, at least it is understandable. What is not understandable is the number of people who actually believe that it’s good for us to see and hear this filth.

For all its faults, the United States of America has been and remains the source of hope and progress to the peoples of the world. We were one of the first countries to outlaw the slave trade (slavery still goes on today in some countries), and we are the first country to go to the aid of countries that suffer disasters. We are the only country in the world where millions of people (remember little Elian Gonzalez) risk their lives every year to try to get here to live.

Since evil thrives when good people do nothing, it is up to the rest of us to fight against all these sick people. I hope I’ve tried during my lifetime, and I hope you will too.

Love, Grandpa Wilcox

 

Is Obama the worst president ever?
 

By HUGH HEWITT | AUGUST 25, 2013  Washington Examiner

President Obama's promises on Obamacare have turned sour as implementation draws closer.

 (AP... "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." — President Obama, Aug. 11, 2009)

So said President Obama again and again through 2009 and 2010 as he sold Obamacare to the country. He promised. He put his personal integrity on the line. His word.

How many UPS employees voted for the president in 2008 and again in 2012? Because on Friday, UPS announced it was dumping 15,000 spouses of UPS employees from their UPS health plans despite the president's many, many promises to the contrary.

The UPS spouse-dump followed by a few days the news from New Jersey that Obamacare's rollout there will end the low-cost, high-deductible plan that more than 106,000 Jersey folks liked and which presumably many of them would have preferred to keep.

Oh, and the cost of individual plans are set to rise on average 41 percent in Ohio, and another major insurance company, Anthem Blue Cross, has pulled out of the California market for small businesses.

Let a thousand stink bombs go kaboom. Obamacare is the train wreck that just keeps arriving on an ever-more prolonged schedule.

Most Mainstream Media refuse to catalogue the consequences of the epic bill that went unread when it was passed without a single Republican vote in 2009. Most journalists just avert their eyes.

But now that that the bodies of hundreds of gassed Syrian children are piling up in Damascus and scores of Christian churches are burned-out shells in Egypt, it is getting harder and harder to find anything to write about the president that doesn't underscore his incompetence.

Obama's tenure is a vast desert of anti-achievement, a landscape of waste and ruin on every front at home and abroad, save on the ability to mobilize voters who don't know or don't care about the state of the country or the world.

The president rolled to re-election on the strength of technologies that enabled his minions to tap and turn out folks who simply are clueless that that nice fellow in the White House hasn't the foggiest idea of how to run the country.

Perhaps by the time you read this, the president will have ordered a few cruise missiles to fall on Damascus, and the anti-Sisi rhetoric will have been toned down in recognition that the general running Egypt is likely to be there far longer than the president is living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

But the prospect of 39 more months of the anti-president at the helm is daunting. No plans for anything except bus tours and college campus speeches, no idea how to invigorate a sputtering economy or trim a bloated budget.

Just miles and miles to go before we can can all sleep without the prospect of seeing him the next day, yet again, making another meaningless speech or filibustering another softball question from a kept White House press.

Many will argue that Stanley Baldwin was the worst of the modern British Prime Ministers, though a few remonstrate half-heartedly for Edward Heath, but Heath did not leave his country vulnerable to war and direct attack that killed hundreds of thousands.

Since 1979 and the acquiescence of the transfer of Iran to religious zealots with world-enders and Hidden Imam-summoners among them, I didn't think it was possible for an American president to be ranked below Jimmy Carter on the competence list.

But now we have Obama, with double the years that Carter had to more than double the wreckage of the Carter era. Obama is working on his place in history every day, and every day he is making that ranking more secure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bigger Picture Part II

In part one (just below) I showed how middle class and lower class Americans have suffered huge decreases in wealth and incomes, especially in the last 35 years, while upper class Americans have made great gains.  This has particularly affected African-Americans whose family life has disintegrated, trapping them in inner cities.  To add to the misery of inner-city life, in cities like Detroit, not only has there been white flight, but those African-Americans who had somehow become successful have also moved out.

Black murder-rates have now reached 10X those of other races, and blacks now account for 85% of all inter-racial crimes. Since almost all victims of black murders are blacks themselves, it behooves all races to try to work together to reverse these trends, even if radical measures are necessary

I identified four areas that can be worked on that are the sources of the problem:

 1. the welfare state led to the disintegration of the African-American family.

2. low and unskilled factory jobs have disappeared in inner cities.

3. the wholesale decline of private sector unions.

4. income tax rates have been cut drastically since 1981 when the highest rate was 70%.

Some solutions will anger liberals; some will anger conservatives.  Cooperation and compromise are necessary before our society disintegrates completely, even though solutions some will call ‘radical’ are necessary.

 The Welfare State

Since AFDC Welfare came into vogue with President Johnson’s Great Society, the number of black children  born out-of-wedlock has reached almost 75%, whereas before AFDC, the black rate was the same as the white rate, leaving us with a society in which millions of fatherless, young black men roam.

The only solution to this problem is to leave AFDC in place for those now receiving it, but end it for new recipients; and replace it with emergency assistance for those needing temporary help, possibly for a period of up to six months, which cannot be repeated for at least three years.

Inner-City Factory Jobs

The federal government should not only subsidize, but guarantee investment in factories built by entrepreneurs in inner cities.   The government should not only establish tariff protection for products of these factories, but guarantee product sales for the early years of production.  We subsidize farmers, and I can remember when cereal grains were burned, potatoes were dyed blue, and milk was dumped.

Why not subsidize an activity that can help restore lost neighborhoods and lost souls?

Restore the Health of Private Sector Unions

I chaffed when I was forced to join a union after I landed my first good job, and later, as an owner of a business, I fought against any attempt at unionization.   It is only recently that I have come to understand the state of income and wealth disparity in this country and to understand the role of union decline in furthering this disparity.

Private-sector union membership has fallen from a peak of 35% of the total private industry labor force in 1950 to a little over 6% today.  There can be no doubt that the decline in factory wages is somewhat keyed to the decline of unions.

Private-sector unionization must be encouraged by federal legislation outlawing “right-to-work” laws as they affect unionization of non-public workers.  “Right-to-work” laws should only be applied to public-sector workers.  This means that “union shops” would be legal in all states (they are illegal in 23 states), and new workers would be required to join and support the existing union.

The Tax Code

The only direct way to ameliorate income and wealth disparities is through income and estate taxes.  I know that some will say that increasing taxes will depress economic activity, but I believe that that is only true for taxes on investment income, which I would leave alone.  I wish that certain tax shelters and tax loopholes could be closed, because the upper 1% of income earners actually pay less taxes than the next lower earnings group, however that is a complex subject beyond the scope of this article.

The current top income tax rate on incomes over $400,000 is 39.6%, a recent increase from 35%.  In 1981, before the Reagan tax cuts, the top rate was 70%. 

I believe that a new top rate of 70% should be applied to incomes exceeding $5,000,000 per year.

The current estate tax is 40% on estates exceeding $5,250,000.  Because of the devastating effect high estate taxes have on family-run farms and small businesses, I would leave this system alone.

 

Note:  All statistics presented in this and in my preceding article are from recognized sources that were stated in previous articles on these subjects in this blog.

Feeling the Heat

By Ben Stein on 7.22.13 American Spectator (excerpt)

 The Trayvon Martin case is worrying me.

 “I had a tough time sleeping last night. The Trayvon Martin case is worrying me. I’ll tell you a few reasons:

First of all, the media have made this case into the lynching of Zimmerman supposedly because he murdered an innocent sweet little black child. But according to what I read, Zimmerman — while a fool — was attacked by Mr. Martin, who was far from unarmed. He was armed with his skills as a martial artist and his strength and size. He wasn’t the sweet altar boy shown on the cover of magazines and on TV. He was a big, strong kid with a history of drug use and a bit of bragging online about his fighting skills. He didn’t start a conversation with Zimmerman when Zimmerman got out of his truck. He attacked Zimmerman, who possibly would have been killed if he had not defended himself.

This is the story the jury heard. This is the story that made the jury unanimously acquit Zimmerman. The media have been telling a fairy tale designed to whip up race hatred.

It horrifies me that the media has tried to turn this sad case into an occasion to make black people hate white people. It horrifies me that Mr. Obama has joined in. His assertion that he could have been Martin is breathtakingly dishonest. If Obama had been Martin, he would have talked Zimmerman out of his watch and his wallet and then gotten a scholarship to college for writing about it. Martin was a dangerously violent kid. Obama was and always has been a politician.

But it’s worse than this: the black community in this nation is in crisis. It has a disastrous situation in terms of education, lack of work habits, complete collapse of the family, wild overuse of drugs, violence, and generally behavior that is destructive to itself and far too many other people. (Obviously, this applies only to some black people. I work every day and you work every day with black people who are in fine shape, much better shape than I am in.)

The least of the problems that black people face in the USA right now is attacks by heavy set volunteer watchmen in gated communities. That’s not even on the radar screen as a serious problem. For Mr. Obama and other “black leaders” and media people to pretend that it is is simply nonsense.
There is real anarchy in many parts of the black community in the USA. For Mr. Obama and others to act as if the real problem is white people locking their car doors at stop lights when black people approach them is just plain poppycock. The black community is not in danger from white people: it is in danger from itself.

The number of black kids killed by white people is minute — although any is too many. The number of black kids killed by the Crips and the Bloods and the Black P-Stone Rangers is enormous. Why no rallies led by “black leaders” against the Crips and the Bloods? The number of black kids whose lives have been ruined by irresponsible parents is immense. Why no rallies against crack-smoking moms and dads?

The answer is sadly easy to see: white people have pretty much given up racism as a factor in their lives. They have to worry about jobs and education and families. Thus, there are none, not any major white leaders of any kind whose stock in trade is whipping up race hatred. That movement simply does not exist.

But among “black leaders,” who really can no longer make credible claims about racism now that we have a black President, who really have no answers to the crisis in the black community, a chance to distract people from their own powerlessness is a golden opportunity.

Among the liberal media, who have really been missing someone to hate for a long time, the Zimmerman case is heaven-sent. They take this poor soul, trying to patrol his community, who is getting beaten to within an inch of his life by a black kid and who saves his own life — and they make him into a Klansman. Into a whole posse of Klansmen.

It’s distressing. Black people have a brutally painful history of suffering in this country. It is a shameful story. It is in the past as far as being caused by white people as a day by day matter. It definitely is not in the past in the black consciousness. They have every reason to feel angry about it. But things have gotten so incredibly, unbelievably better in the last generations in terms of white attitudes that to seek to whip up old animosities while ignoring the present catastrophe in the black community is a disgraceful distraction by the President and “black leaders.”

Many years ago, I ghost wrote an autobiography for a famous black civil rights leader and charismatic speaker. I accompanied him to several gatherings. One of the standard remarks that he made at black events went roughly like this: “Complain about racism all you want. March against police brutality and I’ll be right there with you. But if you really want to do something to feed your family, learn how to fix a clogged plumbing line or how to wire a house with electricity or how to teach math, and then you’re actually getting something done.”
These lines ring in my ears. It terrifies me that we are pretending that the likes of George Zimmerman are a problem when we have real problems. It terrifies me that a man with the power of Eric Holder can use an explicitly racist, anti-white approach to a complex case that is itself a sideshow.

We have real problems in America. We cannot pretend they will go away if we focus on sad, even tragic, peripheral events. Yes, one Trayvon Martin death is one too many. Thousands of deaths of blacks from black violence and drugs are in a different world of hurt.

Race has always been the main problem in America, at least since World War II. We had a spectacular triumph in ridding ourselves of white racism at all but the most trivial levels (like excluding me from a country club). For the President and Eric Holder and the liberal media and the “black leaders” to turn up the heat under a new evil cauldron of racism is terrifying. The only solution is a spiritual solution. Let’s pray for it to come in our lifetimes. If you really try to love your neighbors, you can. It is not easy but it can be done.” American Spectator

New Facts on Zimmerman

The subtitle to the Zimmerman prosecution should be, “Political correctness run amok”.  I own a gun.  Will I be afraid to defend myself and lose my life because of thoughts of what happened to George Zimmerman?  The original investigation by the police and by the attorney general in place at the time exonerated Mr. Zimmerman.  Only an outcry from the liberal press and by professional agitators caused their investigation to be overturned.  Hopefully the facts will be presented, and he will be exonerated again.  In any event, his life has been ruined.

Truth Now Known in Zimmerman Case

George Parry June 9, 2013 PhiladelphiaInquirer

On Monday, in a Florida courtroom, George Zimmerman goes on trial for the murder of Trayvon Martin.

In the immediate aftermath of Martin's death in February 2012, the mainstream media portrayed Zimmerman as a gun-crazy vigilante who stalked and murdered a harmless black youth. Since then, Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's tenacious lawyer, has extracted bits and pieces of evidence from an ethically challenged prosecution that prove Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense. So, at long last, the media's false narrative is about to collide with the hard facts in a court of law.
Let's start with the tape of Zimmerman's 911 call to police. Unlike the deceptively spliced and edited snippets broadcast on television news, the full, undoctored tape proves that, at the time he was supposedly hunting down his intended victim, Zimmerman was asking 911 to send a police officer to his location to investigate Martin's suspicious behavior. If Zimmerman was intending murder, why would he first alert the police and invite them to the scene of the crime?

Similarly, Zimmerman can be heard on the full tape telling the 911 operator that Martin was approaching him. This unscripted, real-time declaration contradicts the media gospel that Zimmerman stalked a retreating and inoffensive Martin.

Moreover, various civilian witnesses have given police statements establishing that, when the fatal shot was fired, Zimmerman was on the ground being beaten by Martin. One eyewitness told police he saw a black male in a dark-color hoodie (later identified as Martin) on top of a "white or Hispanic male" in a red sweatshirt (later identified as Zimmerman), who was on the ground. Martin was throwing punches in "mixed martial-arts" style, while Zimmerman was calling for help.
A second witness told police that he saw Zimmerman on the ground, calling for help "over and over" while he was being beaten.
These and other witnesses described Zimmerman's cries as "a whining sound," "a groaning noise" in which he cried, "Oh, oh, help me," and "crying or moaning in desperation."

The beating lasted until Zimmerman shot Martin.

How long was Zimmerman beaten before he fired his gun? One witness called 911 while the assault took place. The tape of that call runs 38 seconds, during which a voice is heard in the background repeatedly screaming for help. According to the caller, the screaming had prompted her to call 911. How long the screaming lasted before she called is unknown. But, adding that time - however long - to the 38 seconds on the tape establishes that the allegedly trigger-happy, bloodthirsty Zimmerman had been pinned to the ground taking a beating for 38-plus seconds before finally resorting to deadly force. By this measure, Zimmerman acted with great restraint.Martin's parents have repeatedly claimed that the person on the tape calling for help was their son. But immediately after the killing, the police played the 911 call for Martin's father, who said unequivocally that the voice pleading for help was not his son's.

Another witness reported being in his condo when he heard "someone yelling, almost crying," followed by a single gunshot. When the witness ventured outside, he asked Zimmerman if everything was "OK." Zimmerman replied, "Just call the police."

Are these the words of a murderer who has just executed his victim?Then, having allegedly murdered someone, did Zimmerman flee? Far from it. He waited for the police. When the first officer arrived, a witness heard Zimmerman say: "I've got a gun. Just take my gun from me."

The first responding officer describes the scene as follows:"Zimmerman stated that he had shot the subject and was still armed. Zimmerman complied with all my commands and was secured in handcuffs. . . . I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of the head."By this account, Zimmerman certainly wasn't acting like a violent predator fresh from the kill. Moreover, the officer's description of Zimmerman's clothing and injuries further corroborates that he had been flat on the ground taking a beating.

Other officers reported that Zimmerman appeared to have "a broken and bloody nose and swelling of his face," as well as cuts and abrasions to his face and the back of his head. And, consistent with Zimmerman's injuries and the eyewitness statements, the autopsy report documents that Martin had a premortem abrasion to his left ring finger.

According to the autopsy report and the prosecution's forensic analysts, death was caused by a single shot fired from a gun that was either in contact with or no more than one inch away from Martin's hoodie. This supports eyewitness accounts of Martin straddling Zimmerman in the immediate prelude to the shooting, and undermines widespread claims that Zimmerman shot Martin from a safe distance.
All of this evidence makes clear that Zimmerman should never have been arrested. That he must now stand trial for second-degree murder is a sad reflection of the prosecution's cowardice in the face of media-spawned hysteria. Now, as the trial begins, the only real question is whether a fair and impartial jury can be found that will have the courage to defy the lynch-mob frenzy swirling about this case and free an innocent man. 

George Parry is a former state and federal prosecutor practicing law in Philadelphia

More Shocking Ideas

Last fall my readers were shocked to learn that I agree with President Obama that incomes and wealth are badly disproportionately distributed in the USA.  The data are shocking, and the situation is immoral and, ultimately, unsustainable.  I won’t go into this again here.

The basic economic problem that we have here is that real wages have been steadily declining since the early 1970’s, after increasing regularly every decade since 1830.  The promise of a better life tomorrow for ourselves and our children has ended, and that’s where the trouble starts.

When this first began happening, workers responded by working more hours, by taking two jobs and by sending other family members out to work – in order to maintain or improve their standard of living.  When this didn’t work, people began borrowing on their homes and on their credit cards.  This is one reason why the housing and credit crash of 2008 was so devastating.

Of all the factors that have led to the decline in real wages and the growth in inequality, perhaps the only one that is somewhat under our control is the decline in private-sector unions.

“But the figures announced by the bureau point to grave problems for the future of organized labor. The portion of private sector workers in unions fell to just 6.6 percent last year, from 6.9 percent in 2011, causing some labor specialists to question whether private sector unions were sinking toward irrelevance. Private sector union membership peaked at around 35 percent in the 1950s.”  New York Times

As a business owner and employer, I always cheered the decline in union membership and power, but as an American, I now realize that this was one of the worst developments that could happen in our country.  The decline in real wages and the inequalities now present were what re-elected Obama, and there is no end in sight to the class-warfare situation that is developing.

 In my view, raising taxes on the wealthy and strengthening unions are the only two remedies realistically available; promoting growth has not worked.  The Republican Party should adopt a program of supporting and encouraging the growth of responsible unions, and should stop the automatic opposition to all tax rate increases.

 

 

No Way Out

In my last posting I discussed the war on whites being conducted by a certain segment of the black population. Today I present a very important piece by Juan Williams, a journalist who often annoys me with his left-wing views and excuses, but who sometimes speaks truth to power in surprising ways. Some may remember that he was fired by PBS for admitting that he felt frightened when he noticed Muslims getting on an airplane with him.

In my view, Williams’ essay, excerpted below, is another example of how America has been ruined by the welfare policies put in place by President Lyndon Johnson and his “Great Society”. Until we change these policies, our society will continue to disintegrate.  The work rules put in place during the Clinton Presidency may actually have worsened the situation.

Juan Williams: Race and the Gun Debate

The No. 1 cause of death for African-American men between the ages of 15 and 34: being murdered with a gun.

By JUAN WILLIAMS March 26, 2013 Wall St Journal (Excerpt)

This week much of the talk about gun control concerns New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's $12 million ad campaign to put pressure on senators in key states to support legislation that he backs. Or the talk is about the National Rifle Association's pushback against the Bloomberg campaign. Then there was last week's mini-tempest over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision not to include Sen. Dianne Feinstein's assault-weapon ban in a comprehensive gun-control bill the Senate will take up next month.

One thing you don't hear much about in the discussions of guns: race.

That is an astonishing omission, because race ought to be an inescapable part of the debate. Gun-related violence and murders are concentrated among blacks and Latinos in big cities. Murders with guns are the No. 1 cause of death for African-American men between the ages of 15 and 34. But talking about race in the context of guns would also mean taking on a subject that can't be addressed by passing a law: the family-breakdown issues that lead too many minority children to find social status and power in guns.

The statistics are staggering. In 2009, for example, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 54% of all murders committed, overwhelmingly with guns, are murders of black people. Black people are about 13% of the population.

The Justice Department reports that between 1980 and 2008, "blacks were six times more likely than whites to be homicide victims and seven times more likely than whites to commit homicide."…

President Obama, a hero in black America as the first black president, has been remarkably quiet on this issue until recently. It was only in December, after the mass killing of mostly white school children in Newtown, Conn., by a white man, that the president took the political risk of backing new gun-control legislation.

Young blacks' violent deaths from handguns hadn't moved him to such action. The president spoke publicly about that matter only after the recent gun murder of a 15-year-old girl from his hometown of Chicago who had performed at his second inaugural. "Last year there were 443 murders with firearms in this city and 65 were people under 18," Mr. Obama said. "That's the equivalent of a Newtown every four months. This is not just a gun issue. It is also an issue of the communities that we are building."

In speaking about social breakdown in those minority communities, the president put the gun issue in the context of high rates of out-of-wedlock births that lead to high rates of childhood poverty. "I wish I had a father who was around and involved," the president said, in words that echoed loudly through black and Latino neighborhoods nationally because he revealed a pain so common, yet so rarely confessed, among young people of color.

 

The shame and silence is enforced by civil-rights leaders who speak in support of gun control but never about a dysfunctional gangster-rap culture that glorifies promiscuity, drug dealers and the power of the gun.

 

"Loving, supporting parents . . . [are] the single most important thing," the president told his audience of young, mostly minority children at Hyde Park Academy High School in Chicago. He made the case for parents as the key to giving children a sense of self-esteem beyond the barrel of a gun.

Almost 50 years ago, when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, the national out-of-wedlock birthrate was 7%. Today it is over 40%. According to the CDC, the out-of-wedlock birthrate for white children was just 2% in the 1960s. Today it is 30%. Among black children, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has skyrocketed from 20% in the 1960s to a heartbreaking 72% today. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock rate, which has been measured for a much shorter period, was below 40% in 1990 and stands at more than 50% as of the 2010 census.

When President Obama tried to speak to this crippling dynamic in 2008, he was basically told to shut up by Rev. Jesse Jackson. The Chicago-based activist said: "Barack was talking down to black people," then he added a vulgar threat about what he wanted to do in response. The moment revealed the high cost of speaking honestly about social breakdown in black America.

I support gun control. But speaking honestly about the combustible mix of race and guns may be more important to stopping the slaughter in minority communities than any new gun-control laws.” Wall St Journal

Mr. Williams is a political analyst for Fox News and a columnist for the Hill.

CEO Pay Curtailed

We have often pointed out the immorality and unfairness of CEO pay in the US that has grown recently from 40X average wages to 400X average wages. We considered using tax policy to even things out, even slightly, but our friend, Mason, suggested giving stockholders the right to veto such outrageous CEO contracts. The Swiss have now done this and led the way.

Swiss Back Strict Executive Pay Curbs

March 3, 2013 CNBC.com (excerpt)

“Swiss citizens voted on Sunday to impose some of the world's strictest controls on executive pay, forcing public companies to give shareholders a binding vote on compensation, result projections showed.

Claude Longchamp of pollsters Gfs.Bern told Swiss state television early returns in a referendum showed 68 percent backed allowing shareholders to veto executive pay proposals and a ban on big rewards for new and departing managers.

While anger at multi-million dollar payouts for executives has spread around the globe since the financial crisis, Swiss direct democracy — including four national referendums a year — means public outrage can be translated into action.

A few other countries, including the United States and Germany, have introduced advisory "say on pay" votes and Britain is also planning to give shareholders a binding vote on pay and "exit payments" at least every three years. Brussels agreed a cap on bankers' bonuses last week.

The clear majority in Switzerland was unusual given fierce opposition and intense campaigning by business lobby group Economiesuisse, which warned the proposals would damage the country's competitiveness and scare away international talent.

Support for the move was driven partly by big bonuses blamed for fuelling risky investments that nearly felled Swiss bank UBS, as well as outrage over a proposed $78 million payment to outgoing Novartis chairman Daniel Vasella.

"The clear support for the initiative reflects the understandable anger of the electorate at the self-serving mentality of certain managers," said a group representing most of the parties in parliament which opposed the plan. "With their misconduct, they have done the economy as a whole a disservice."

Thomas Minder, the businessman-turned-politician behind the campaign who says his proposals are aimed at ending a culture of short-termism and rewards for managers of badly-run companies, said intense corporate lobbying had backfired.

"This is a clear sign of the distance between the people and the political and business establishment," he said.

Despite threats from some executives, Switzerland is unlikely to see an exodus of big companies, drawn to the country by low taxes, stable politics and business-friendly laws.” CNBC

At the present time, in the US, stockholders can only "advise" their boards on CEO pay, even under the new Dodd-Frank law.  We need to follow the Swiss lead on this.

Excerpt From ThinkProgress.org

“Many of the same problems that led to Swiss frustration with CEO pay apply here in the U.S. For instance, Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit walked off with millions of dollars after vaporizing most of his company’s value. Duke Energy paid its former CEO $44 million for working literally one day.

Skyrocketing executive pay (along with growing pay in the finance industry) is a huge component in America’s growing income inequality. In fact, “Executives, and workers in finance, accounted for 58 percent of the expansion of income for the top 1 percent and 67 percent of the increase in income for the top 0.1 percent from 1979 to 2005.” Special tax deductions for executive pay cost taxpayers billions of dollars per year.

In the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, shareholders of U.S. corporations were also given new powers meant to rein in executive pay. However, Dodd-Frank only gives shareholders a non-binding vote, meaning that the corporation is able to essentially ignore it.

The corporate argument that huge executive pay packages are necessary to retain top talent has proven to be false. Yet the U.S. tax code preferences these pay packages, and there’s little shareholders (or anyone else) can do to stop them."  ThinkProgress.org