Huckabee's Nursing Home Bed Tax

Another nugget I have unearthed while researching our 2012 candidate's records as governors is Mike Huckabee's so called bed tax. I normally don't like to quote more than a few paragraphs from a source, but FactCheck.org wrote a very well informed piece on this tax.

A Tax By Any Other Name ...

On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Huckabee about several taxes for which the conservative organization Club for Growth has lambasted the governor, including one on nursing home patients. Huckabee played with semantics in his response :

Huckabee (Fox News Sunday, Nov. 18): Well, we didn't raise them on nursing home patients. That was a quality assurance fee that was supported by the industry.

Huckabee backed and signed into law a 2001 bill requiring a “quality assurance fee,” which was a $5.25 fee per bed, per day for nursing homes designed to increase funding for the state Medicaid program. Arkansas media outlets and state legislators dubbed it the “bed tax,” and in fact, Huckabee himself has called it that on at least one occasion. In discussing a controversy over the subsequent hikes in prices charged to private-insurance patients (those who personally pay their bills), he said:

Huckabee (quoted in Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, July 19) : Many of them told their patients that it was directly resulted from the bed tax. What we have shown you is that is not true; some of these increases are not the result of the bed tax.

Whether the governor calls it a tax or a fee, the money charged was to be adjusted annually so that nursing homes would pay an annual fee "equal to six percent (6%) of the aggregate annual gross receipts,” according to Act 635 of 2001. The legislation also stipulated that nursing homes could not list the fee as a separate charge on billing statements to patients.

It is true, as Huckabee said, that the industry strongly supported the measure. The president of the Arkansas Health Care Association said the group was "ecstatic" that the governor signed the bill into law, according to the Democrat-Gazette. Huckabee had vetoed a bill that would have raised the funds through a tax on tobacco products.

Huckabee also told Fox News that the bed tax "increased the quality of care by increasing the staffing requirements." The tax may have led some homes to hire more employees, but a separate piece of legislation specifically increased the staffing requirements. Despite that law, a 2003 congressional report by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that many of Arkansas' nursing homes didn't meet federal staffing recommendations.

Softy on Sex Offenders?

I have been researching taxation records for our four governors, Daniels, Pawlenty, Romney, and Huckabee, and I came across two astonishing nuggets. The first nugget is from Romney's record. Romney "vetoed a $75 fee for offenders required by law to register with the state."

This is alarming and almost incomprehensible. Two lines of argument from Romney supporters have been put forth as to why Romney would do this. The first is that Romney ran on a no new taxes pledge and was honoring his campaign pledge. But then what about the other $5oo million of fees he signed into law?

The second argument is from Kevin Madden, Romney’s spokesman, (who) said his boss raised fees by only $260 million and noted that the $75 fee increase for sex offenders was a disincentive for offenders to register, making it harder to track them.

But how can that be reconciled with mandating health insurance for anyone in MA who wants to use the medical facilities in the state? How are all those millions of persons going to be tracked? What about the illegals living in the state? What about persons who move back and forth across state lines to avoid the insurance mandate? Sorry Kevin, your argument doesn't hold water with me. No doubt it will be hard to track sex offenders, but it does not follow that you just roll over and let them be a drag on the system.

The other nugget I alluded to is from Huckabee's record and I will address that later.

If We could only treat each other like dogs

The other day while commenting on Right Speak, I started to observe some comments that I thought were pretty funny. I then read the comment of another poster who felt that those same comments that I laughed at were over the top. In both instances, the posters were from 2 different political camps. So I started to wonder if there were any etiquette rules involved in the conduct of individuals who post on political sites?

So I started to Google and found rules for just about everything under the sun. None for political sites. Being a dog lover, I noticed a website that had rules that apply to dog shows. I started imagining Sarah Palin as a Pit Bull, Mike Huckabee as a Rat Terrier, and My favorite candidate Mitt Romney as an Irish Setter (No, we won't go there).

The American kennel Club has a long history of sporting competitions dating prior to 1884. There was no doubt in my mind that these people new how to treat dogs during competitions. In their literature I found, The American Kennel Club's AKC Code Of Sportmanship

So with a little imagination and some time to kill, I took it upon myself to see what I would end up with if switched the following terms in the AKC's Code. I made substitutions as follows:

Dogs = Candidates
Sportsmen = Political Bloggers (and people who post comments), or Candidate's supporters
AKC = On-line Political Blogging Sites
Sport = Debate

And Voila! The Rules For Political Blogging On-Line:

• Bloggers respect the history, traditions and integrity of the candidates.
• Bloggers commit themselves to values of fair play, honesty, courtesy, and vigorous competition, as well as winning and losing with grace.
• Bloggers refuse to compromise their commitment and obligation to candidates by injecting personal advantage or consideration into their decisions or behavior.
• Bloggers judge only on the merits of the candidates and considers no other factors.
• Bloggers accepts constructive criticism of their candidate.
• Bloggers decline to make judgment where it might reasonably appear that the judgment is based on something other than the merits of the candidates.
• Bloggers respect the Blogging site's bylaws, rules, regulations and policies governing the discussion of candidates
• Bloggers find that vigorous competition and civility are not inconsistent and are able to appreciate the merit of their competition and the effort of competitors.
• Bloggers welcome, encourage and support newcomers to the sport.
• Bloggers will deal fairly with all those who trade with them.
• Bloggers are willing to share honest and open appraisals of both the strengths and weaknesses of their candidates.
• Bloggers always consider as paramount the welfare of their Candidate.
• Bloggers refuse to embarrass the debate, Blogging Site, or themselves while taking part in the debate.

Now I realize that these rules originally applied to DOGS and not political figures. But I have to wonder if there are rules to treat dogs in dog shows, why aren't there rules to treat candidates in political contests? if the supporters of one political figure treated supporters of other political figures according to AKC RULES, our debates would be more professional and less about our personal feelings and more about the candidates.

Political figures, like dogs, have different characteristics that many people like to dwell on. I've seen comments on religion, shape, and intellect. In dog competitions, many different types of dogs compete for BEST IN SHOW or TOP DOG. There's the Working, utility, hounds, toy, terrier, sporting, and herding groups. All with different backgrounds,training, and characteristics. All unique in their own particular way. You never hear fans of one particular group making snarky remarks about the physical characteristics or training of another type or group. No comments like, "that dog is too well groomed"or "boy is that dog fat". it seems that fans of dog shows realize that dogs come in all shapes and sizes. You won't hear anyone making fun of a particular dog because it missed a particular cue in an event. More than likely, you'll hear comments like "well done" or "with a little work, I can foresee improvement".

I can't help but wonder, what would it be like if political contests were run like dog competitions? What if picking the best candidate for President was more like picking Best in Show or Top Dog?

Well, I know I was grasping at straws with this. Just chock it up as time to waste and a little wishful thinking.

 

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Group that Killed Bin Laden was Smeared as Dick Cheney's 'Assassination Ring'

It's been reported that bin Laden was killed by SEAL Team Six, officially known as Naval Special Warfare Development Group or DevGru.... 

DevGru belongs to the Joint Special Operations Command, an extraordinary and unusual collection of classified standing task forces and special-missions units. They report to the president and operate worldwide based on the legal (or extra-legal) premises of classified presidential directives...... 

......Under Bush, JSOC was routinely smeared by the left and placed at the center of many Bush/Cheney conspiracy theories. Specifically, New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh alleged it was Dick Cheney's personal assassination squad.

Read the rest of the story HERE.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Mitt Romney out for Fox News South Carolina debate

Mitt Romney won't attend the first Republican presidential debate in South Carolina on Thursday, his exploratory committee confirmed Monday.
Continue Reading

“Gov. Romney will not be participating in this week’s South Carolina debate because it’s still early, the field is too unsettled and he’s not yet an announced candidate," top Romney aide Matt Rhoades said in a statement Monday. "Fox News and the South Carolina Republican Party have both been notified of this decision."

The full story is HERE.

It looks as if the only candidates attending are Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Buddy Roemer, and Hermain Cain.

File this Fox debate under the category, the BIG YAWN or SOMETHING BETTER TO DO!

Comparing Records on Life

I consider there to be four serious republican candidates for president, Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty, and Daniels (if Daniels decides to get in). I wanted to compare their records as governors in passing legislation to reduce abortions.

First is Mitt Romney. He doesn't really have much of a record on life as governor, not having had much of an opportunity to pass restricting legislation and not being proactive to introduce such legislation. He did hold the line on abortion legislation while governor, just as he promised he would. He did not allow expanded abortion rights, and vetoed stem cell research funding. He is not to be blamed for the $50 abortions as they were already law before he became governor. If Bosman or one of our other in the know Romney supporters can add more, or correct me, I am open to that.

Mike Huckabee signed many bills while governor that promoted life. He signed bills: banning partial birth abortion; establishing a woman's right to know, ensuring that her consent to an abortion is an informed one; mandate parental notification and consent for abortions performed on minors; requiring doctors to inform pregnant women considering abortions that the fetus does feel pain; providing immunity from criminal prosecution for women who give birth then abandon the baby at a medical facility; criminalizing assault on a pregnant woman; and funding for "Choose Life" license plates.

An article from National Review claims that Tim Pawlenty May Be the Strongest Pro-Life Candidate in 2012 . His record is pretty good, but he passed fewer laws than Huckabee did.

Pawlenty signed into law the Woman’s Right to Know Act, giving women information about abortion risks and alternatives as well as information on fetal development. Minnesota was also the first to give women information on fetal pain — coming well in advance of the new trend of banning abortions based on that scientific concept, which Nebraska started last year. The former governor followed up that bill by signing the Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act in 2005 to give women even more information on the pain their babies feel during an abortion.

In 2005 he signed the Positive Alternatives to Abortion Act to make Minnesota one of just a handful of states that send public funds to pregnancy centers providing tangible support for pregnant women and abortion alternatives.

...Governor Pawlenty issued a proclamation in 2010 designating the month of April as “Abortion Recovery Month” and urging agencies in the state to help women who are suffering problems following their abortions.

Pawlenty also vetoed a bill that would have legalized human cloning and signed a bill banning funding of human cloning.

The article provides statistics that during Pawlenty's administration abortions have dropped 14%. That's great. But as I researched statistics I found that nationwide abortion rates have been dropping over the last 20 years. So whether the drop in MN is a direct result of laws passed by Pawlenty or a more indirect result in a cultural change in the US, it is not possible to say with certainty.

It has been more difficult to find a list of the laws that Daniels has signed. I did find that he signed laws that "requires health care professionals to provide a pregnant woman with the options of obtaining an ultrasound and of listening to the fetus’ heartbeat before performing an abortion." And another bill "requiring abortion clinics to abide by the same safety and health standards as other outpatient surgical clinics." And his administration "authorized a “Choose Life” license plate."

But the most significant development is HEA bill 1210 which Daniels will sign within the next week or so. It will cut off $2 million in federal funding to Planned Parenthood that would have been used to provide abortion services. "In addition to Planned Parenthood losing 2/3 of its funding, bill 1210 will lower the window for women to have abortions to 20 weeks, as well as, require doctors to inform their patients that abortions can lead to infertility issues, and that fetuses can feel pain around 20 weeks." Indianna will be the first state to defund Planned Parenthood.

In 2008 there was really one candidate for SoCons to rally around, Mike Huckabee. As much as I admire Romney and believe that his conversion to life is legitimate, he is never going to be a standard bearer for the life movement. The great thing in 2012 is that there are now three candidates with very strong records of achievement in promoting life and restricting abortions.

However, there is one candidate that stands on a pinnacle far above all the others for achievement in restricting abortions and that is Mitch Daniels. The laws signed by Pawlenty and Huckabee are very important and they should be praised highly for signing them. It is lamentable that Romney didn't work to protect life with the dedication that those two governors did. But, while they were attempting to chop down the forest of abortions in their states with axes, Mitch Daniels plowed into his forest with a bulldozer.

David Frum: It's Mitt Romney vs. Tim Pawlenty

David Frum has grouped potential 2012 candidates into 3 categories:

CANDIDATES WHO COULD WIN THE NOMINATION:

Chris Christie
Tim Pawlenty
Paul Ryan
Mitt Romney

CANDIDATES WHO COULD WIN THE ELECTION:

Mitch Daniels
Mike Huckabee
Tim Pawlenty
Mitt Romney

CANDIDATES WHO COULD ACTUALLY DO THE JOB OF PRESIDENT:

Chris Christie
Mitch Daniels
Mike Huckabee
Tim Pawlenty
Mitt Romney

Because Romney and Pawlenty are on ALL 3 lists, he believes these two will end up in the MAIN EVENT. To understand his reasoning, you will need to read the full article here.

2012 Presidential Contenders and America React to Osama Bin Laden's Death

Mitt Romney:

This is a great victory for lovers of freedom and justice everywhere. Congratulations to our intelligence community, our military and the president. My thoughts are with the families of Osama bin Laden's many thousands of victims, and the brave servicemen and women who have laid down their lives in pursuit of this murderous terrorist.

Mike Huckabee:

"It is unusual to celebrate a death, but today Americans and decent people the world over cheer the news that madman, murderer and terrorist Osama Bin Laden is dead ... Welcome to hell, bin Laden. Let us all hope that his demise will serve notice to Islamic radicals the world over that the United States will be relentless is tracking down and terminating those who would inflict terror, mayhem and death on any of our citizens."

Sarah Palin:

"Thank you, American men and women in uniform. You are America's finest and we are all so proud. Thank you for fighting against terrorism."

Tim Pawlenty:

"This is terrific news for freedom and justice. In the hours after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush promised that America would bring Osama bin Laden to justice -- and we did. I want to congratulate America's armed forces and President Obama for a job well done."

Michelle Bachmann:

"Tonight's news does not bring back the lives of the thousands of innocent people who were killed that day by Osama bin Laden's horrific plan, and it does not end the threat posed by terrorists, but it is my hope that this is the beginning of the end of Sharia-compliant terrorism."

Rick Santorum:

"This is extraordinary news for all freedom loving people of the world, and I commend all those involved for this historic triumph. Americans have waited nearly 10 years for the news of Osama bin Laden's death. And while this is a very significant objective that cannot be minimized, the threat from Jihadism does not die with bin Laden."

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH:

Earlier this evening, President Obama called to inform me that American forces killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al Qaeda network that attacked America on September 11, 2001. I congratulated him and the men and women of our military and intelligence communities who devoted their lives to this mission. They have our everlasting gratitude. This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done.

Vice President Dick Cheney:

"The death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of American forces is a victory for the United States and a tremendous achievement for the military and intelligence professionals who carried out this important mission.   Their tireless work since 9/11 has made this achievement possible, and enabled us to capture or kill thousands of al Qaeda terrorists and many of their leaders.  I also want to congratulate President Obama and the members of his national security team.  At this moment when bin Laden has been brought to justice, we especially remember the sacrifice of the young Americans who've paid the ultimate price in defense of the nation, as well as the nearly 3000 Americans who lost their lives on 9/11.  Al Qaeda remains a dangerous enemy.  Though bin Laden is dead, the war goes on.  We must remain vigilant, especially now, and we must continue to support our men and women in uniform who are fighting on the front lines of this war every day.  Today, the message our forces have sent is clear -- if you attack the United States, we will find you and bring you to justice."

President Obama talks Trump at the WH Correspondent's Dinner

 President Obama made Donald Trump the target of many of his jokes Saturday night at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Fast forward to the 9:35 minute mark where the Trump comments begin.:

Usama Bin Laden is Dead!

Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks against the United States, is dead, and the U.S. is in possession of his body, a person familiar with the situation said late Sunday......

......It was unclear where how bin Laden was killed and how the U.S. captured his body. Officials have long believed bin Laden, the most wanted man in the world, was hiding a mountainous region along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

The full story is HERE.

Republican Chairs of NH & Iowa talk Romney, Huckabee, Trump, and the 2012 elections

State Republican Party Chairs Jack Kimball of New Hampshire and Matt Strawn from Iowa talked about the 2012 presidential campaign on C-SPAN:

I'd take Sarah Palin Over Trump any day of the week

This is more of an observation than a post trying to make a specific point on something. I'd like to say up front that I'm not a Sarah Palin supporter and she would not be my first choice as President.

Lately with Donald Trump taking to the political stage, many of Sarah Palin's supporters have felt that a lot of the support she had, has gone to Trump.

As a Romney supporter myself, I can say without hesitation, that I could Support Palin in a heartbeat over the Republican disguised Trump if the GOP nomination came down to that.

The following is another example of why. Recently, Trump made a speech in which he used several swears and cuss words:

WARNING!!! Small Children should not present during this viewing!

Very Presidential Huh?

Some will argue, that "That's how everyone talks now". that maybe true. But EVERYONE isn't President of the United States.

I want a President whose personal values represent mine. I want a President who when he/she comes on the TV screen, you don't have to send the kids into the other room. Everyone can't be a roll model. The NEXT PRESIDENT needs to be one. Especially when you look at the direction that our society is heading. We don't need a potty mouth in the White House.

So to Sarah, anyone who left you for Trump, isn't worth your effort. Trump is a passing phase. Kind of like a bad case of gas. It eventually blows itself out.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Donald trump: His Left vs. His Right

Once you get to learn more about Donald Trump and his many contradicting views, One has to wonder if the poor man might have a personality disorder? A MULTIPLE PERSONALITY DISORDER:

Mike Huckabee Speech at the NRA (VIDEO 04-30-11)

Mke Huckabee's speech at the NRA's Celebration of American Values Freedom Experience:


ENJOY!

If you like when we bring you LIVE FEEDS and the latest videos, please show your appreciation by liking us here on Facebook.

Why Keynes is popular

I'm really too busy to post here (and have bad computer access), but I've come to realize writing about some things I've been thinking about lately may be the only way to stop thinking about them and get back to thinking about the things I should think about - exams, for example.

Anyway, so the subject is: Why do so many economists love Keynes? For uninformed readers, Keynes was the guy who invented this whole "stimulus" spending thing, in the 1930's. He thought the government should steer the market, and "save capitalism from the capitalists".

In practice, while in the original idea you're supposed to run budget surpluses during the booms so you can run budget deficits during the recessions, what happens is politicians spend during recessions but refuse to save during booms. That's understandable, because voters tend not to vote for politicans who would rather save for a rainy day than spend money on largely useless social programs. We get the politicians we deserve, remember.

You could say economists don't understand politics, and therefore they don't take such political problems into account when they recommend a course of actions.

I, however, have come to the conclusion that economists love Keynes because he strokes their egos. In Keyne's worldview, the economists are Gods. They are the ones responsible for steering the economy, as you recall. They decide when stimulus is needed, how much and where it should be invested. Keynes assume that economists are more or less allknowing and should therefore be almighty.

As a future economist, I find this view very flattering, and I really wish it was true.

Compare this to the view of, for example, FA Hayek. His view was that economists were mostly standing in the way of prosperity, that those fancy models we use are worthless, that econometrics is a toy in the hands of economists trying to play God and that if we just would stand on the sidelines and let the economy work by itself, things would be so much better.

As an economist, that kind of view makes you so depressed you'll almost become suicidal if you believe in it. Hayek is essentially saying that you're useless and will always be, because the economy is too unpredictable and we don't need government to "push us in the right direction" (which is essentially what Keynesianism is all about: when consumers don't spend, government takes their money and does it for them). That's an economist's favourite task, so losing it isn't fun. Not fun at all.

Here is a great video on the matter of Hayek vs Keynes:



See you,
/John G