Minor Thoughts from me to you

I don't know about you, but I think there's something creepy about the way Obama carries his teleprompters with him where ever he goes.

President Barack Obama doesn't go anywhere without his TelePrompter.

The textbook-sized panes of glass holding the president's prepared remarks follow him wherever he speaks.

Resting on top of a tall, narrow pole, they flank his podium during speeches in the White House's stately parlors. They stood next to him on the floor of a manufacturing plant in Indiana as he pitched his economic stimulus plan. They traveled to the Department of Transportation this week and were in the Capitol Rotunda last month when he paid tribute to Abraham Lincoln in six-minute prepared remarks.

Obama's reliance on the teleprompter is unusual -- not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.

Democrats howled about suspicions that President Bush might be wearing a wire during debates with Senator Kerry. They claimed that he was programmed by his staff and couldn't speak unless he was being fed the words to say. President Obama seems unable to make a speech -- large or small -- unless a machine gives him the words to say. The rumors about President Bush were only rumors. (And thin ones at that.) The facts about President Obama speak for themselves. And they're not saying complimentary things.

John Piper offers some helpful insight on some confusing Bible passages.

Does God visit the sins of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation? Some texts seem to say he does and others seem to say he doesn't. Our job is to figure out the sense in which he does and the sense in which he doesn't.

How do these passages fit together? This matters for the sake of God's character, and the Bible's coherence, and how we counsel those whose parents were wicked or just garden variety sinful.

I've read some good news on taxes today. At least, I think it's good news.

First, Senator Evan Bayh (D) wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed critizing the omnibus spending bill that's currently working it's way through the Senate.

The Senate should reject this bill. If we do not, President Barack Obama should veto it.

The omnibus increases discretionary spending by 8% over last fiscal year's levels, dwarfing the rate of inflation across a broad swath of issues including agriculture, financial services, foreign relations, energy and water programs, and legislative branch operations. Such increases might be appropriate for a nation flush with cash or unconcerned with fiscal prudence, but America is neither.

Drafted last year, the bill did not pass due to Congress's long-standing budgetary dysfunction and the frustrating delays it yields in our appropriations work. Since then, economic and fiscal circumstances have changed dramatically, which is why the Senate should go back to the drawing board. The economic downturn requires new policies, not more of the same.

The solution going forward is to stop wasteful spending before it starts. Families and businesses are tightening their belts to make ends meet -- and Washington should too.

The omnibus debate is not merely a battle over last year's unfinished business, but the first indication of how we will shape our fiscal future. Spending should be held in check before taxes are raised, even on the wealthy. Most people are willing to do their duty by paying taxes, but they want to know that their money is going toward important priorities and won't be wasted.

Senator Bayh voted for the "stimulus" package, so I'm not sure how seriously to take these criticisms. Still, it is refreshing to see a Democrat criticizing a spending bill.

Secondly, Senators are starting to rebel over some of Obama's tax hikes.

The resistance from Mr. Obama's own party -- focusing on a single element of the president's tax plans -- could foreshadow broader troubles for the rest of his proposed tax increases.

Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.), the Senate's top tax writer as chairman of the Finance Committee, told Mr. Geithner he was especially concerned about paying for expanded health coverage with a deductions curb that "has nothing to do with health care." He added: "I'm wondering about the viability of that provision."

Charitable organizations are also worried. Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy said Wednesday that Mr. Obama's proposals to limit deductions and raise rates, if applied in 2006, would have reduced giving by nearly $4 billion, or 2.1%.

"I'd like to think that people give out of the goodness of their heart, but that tax deduction helps to loosen up the heartstrings," Nevada Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley said Tuesday during a House Ways and Means Committee hearing.

And, let's give credit to Washington Senator Maria Cantwell (D). She makes a great point:

Another Democrat, Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, questioned why the administration wouldn't look for savings in the tax code through a comprehensive overhaul. "Why not look at a broader approach to tax policy, [rather] than coming in with this proposed change to marginal rates?" Ms. Cantwell said.

This is certainly an unusual post. When was the last time I praised two Democrat senators in one post? Maybe there is something to Obama's hope & change rhetoric after all.

My wife and I talk a lot about hospitality. We want our home to be a home away from home for those who may not have a home. Specifically, for Christians who are living overseas and just visiting the States while on furlough. Aside from having space to accomodate guests, how else can we be welcoming? It's something we haven't thought a lot about. Normally, our conversations start and end with "when we get a bigger house". But we should be talking and thinking about it more.

That's why I was so glad to read some hospitality tips from Lydia Brownback. She writes about both attitudes and actions. Many of the actions are most relevant for my wife -- after all, there's only so much I can do while I'm at work 9 hours out of every day. But the attitudes are very relevant to me. And, I can certainly help with the actions and make my wife's tasks easier.

Lydia offers four principles.

1. Hospitality isn't based on having the "right" house.
2. Hospitality isn't always convenient.
3. Hospitality isn't always comfortable.
4. Hospitality is always about serving others.

She also offers four habits.

1. Decide to get organized.
2. Alter your attitude about your home.
3. Get fixed with food.
4. Prioritize people.

I think this will give us a great start to becoming a hospitable family. It's time to break out the planning spreadsheets!

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin had this to say about President Obama's budget.

I'm pleased that President Obama rejected the "creative accounting" of the Bush Administration, whose budgets never included the actual costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and never fully funded the domestic programs that we desperately need - in education, health care, infrastructure, and energy. President Obama has presented us with an honest assessment of the challenges facing our nation. He also makes the tough choices necessary to restore fiscal responsibility and begin reducing the deficit, while making critical investments to help our economy not only recover, but grow.

.

Did she mean this kind of honesty?

The president used the word "honest." That's astonishing. Look, all budgets are fiction. This one is fantasia.

Look, let's start with the projections in revenue. Obama has promised to cut the deficit by the end of the first term in half. He does it by pretending that in 2011 there will be a growth in the economy of about 5.5 percent, and in the next year it will be over six.

Now, these are Chinese-level numbers, and even the Chinese aren't achieving them anymore. It is completely fictional, those numbers.

Next year he says we will grow at about 3.5 percent. Next year we could still be in negative territory.

And then on the cuts, he speaks about the $2 trillion in savings. And, actually, in the speech he gave to congress, he spoke of $2 trillion in savings, and now he has amended it, and he says, well, budget reduction.

And that's because half of it isn't savings at all. It's tax increases. And the other half is a fictional saving of a projected spending on Iraq, which would go out to ten years at the current levels, and have us spending in 2018 at a level that we are today that nobody expects and nobody even imagines.

So it's a saving of about a trillion and a half of Iraqi spending that would never have happened in the first place. And that's how he gets his spending cuts….

And on the agricultural cuts, he announced it proudly. It is $20 million, which means that if you have a thousand of those, a thousand of those, it would be 1/10 of one percent of $2 trillion in cuts he has promised.

It is a matter of scale. The cuts he's talking about are miniscule and almost risible when you look at his promises. The big cuts are actually tax increases fictional Iraq savings.

Or possibly she meant this kind of honesty.

Well, I think this budget is politically and economically risky, and precisely because it doesn't have enough spending reduction. If you look at what you've got, you've got about $2 trillion in deficit reduction.

That comes from $1.5 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan reductions that are largely illusory. They pretend we would have spent $170 billion a year for a long time, and we're not.

And then a $700 billion increase in revenues from a cap-and-trade program that has never even come close getting through the U.S. Congress. So that's the deficit reduction, not obvious it'll come to fruition.

And then the rest is about $1 trillion of tax increases on high-income individuals and businesses to fund $1 trillion in tax cuts that are already on the books from the stimulus bill, with "Making Work Pay," Earned Income Tax Credit, things like that.

So you've got a dynamic where they're counting on things that are either illusory and hard to make happen politically -- cap-and-trade and tax increases -- to fund things that are already there. They didn't cut spending. And that makes all the deficits that are presented best-guess estimates. The risks are all the upside.

You know, I'm not sure that's really honest after all. That looks kinda like "creative accounting" if you ask me. I wonder what kind of honesty Congresswoman Baldwin meant? For Congresswoman Baldwin is an honorable woman.

David Bernstein talks about the rich:

My friends in this income bracket [$250-380K] tend to have have high mortgages, work 60-80 hours a week, pay 40-50K or more a year for child care (a nanny is necessary when you often work into the late evening--and even day care for two kids in the DC area costs close to 40K a year), and have six figures worth of student loans, primarily from professional school, that they are still paying off. In other words, approximately 100K of their pretax income is taken up by their student loans and child care costs, which are the equivalent of "startup costs". Their mortgage costs may seem excessive, but you don't easily make six figures in low-housing cost cities like Des Moines, and living in outer suburbs is very difficult when you work 12 hour days.

If a hypothetical couple's initial income is a total of $300K, and they work an average of 70 hours each, and assuming two weeks vacation, they are in effect getting a grand total of $28.57 an hour for their labors, and a fair percent of that is going to pay interest on the mortgage. I'm sure they are glad to know that they are rich enough to be taxed at over 50% of their marginal dollar.

I wonder how many people think about that when they think about soaking the rich?

Obama Delivers $3.6 Trillion Budget Blueprint - WSJ.com

The president blamed the nation's economic travails on the administration that preceded him and on a nation that lost its bearings. His budget plan projects a federal deficit of $1.75 trillion for 2009, or 12.3% of the gross domestic product, a level not seen since 1942 as the U.S. plunged into World War II.

"This crisis is neither the result of a normal turn of the business cycle nor an accident of history," the president states in an opening message of the 134-page document. "We arrived at this point as a result of an era of profound irresponsibility that engulfed both private and public institutions from some of our largest companies' executive suites to the seats of power in Washington, D.C."

By 2013, the deficit would drop to $533 billion but begin to climb from there again as the heart of the Baby Boom begins drawing Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Mr. Obama proposes large increases in education funding, including indexing Pell Grants for higher education to inflation and converting the popular scholarship to an automatic "entitlement" program. High-speed rail would gain a $1 billion-a-year grant program, part of a larger effort to boost infrastructure spending even beyond the funds in his $787 billion stimulus plan.

In one of the budget's most ambitious proposals, the president plans to cap the emissions of greenhouse gases, forcing polluters to purchase permits for emissions that would be slowly brought down to 14% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. The sale of those permits, beginning in 2012, would reap $646 billion through 2019. Of those revenues, $525.7 billion would be devoted to extending Mr. Obama's signature "Making Work Pay" $800 tax credit for working couples. Another $120 billion would go to clean energy technology.

Obama's 2% Illusion - WSJ.com

Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.

Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%." Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That's about 7% of all returns; the data aren't broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% -- about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 -- paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.

But let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.

As the journal points out, incomes are falling fast right now. Taking a bigger share of a smaller income isn't really going to give you any extra money.

The Obama Baseline - James C. Capretta - The Corner on National Review Online

Politicians like to say they are "cutting the budget." But budget cutting can only be understood in context. Compared to what?

In budget-speak, there is a "baseline" against which budget decisions are measured. Normally, the "baseline" assumes current law and policy. But if you want to look like you are cutting the budget without really doing so, the answer is to inflate the "baseline" so that the cut is measured against an artificially high target.

President Bill Clinton did exactly that in 1993. In 1990, President Bush 41 had negotiated hard caps on appropriations spending that lasted through 1995. The "baseline" Congress used in 1992 assumed these caps held because a breach would trigger across-the-board cuts. In the first year of his presidency, Clinton wanted to look like he was cutting one dollar in spending for every dollar of taxes he was increasing, even though he wasn't willing to take the heat for real cuts. The solution? He redefined the baseline to assume the caps were no longer operative, announced his support for keeping what was already the law of the land, and claimed a sizeable spending "cut" as his own.

Pres. Barack Obama may be about to do the same thing.

Hope, change, and transparency gives way to huge, bloated budgets and more of the same old Washington tricks.

Happy Thursday!

You want an easy way to make me angry? Threaten my kids. You want an easy way to make me really angry? Assume that every parent is a bad parent and then threaten my kids because you can't be bothered to figure out which type of parent I am. This story from "Great" Britain makes me furious.

A couple forced to give up three children for adoption despite a judge ruling they may have been wrongly accused of abuse yesterday vowed to take their legal fight to Europe.

Mark and Nicky Webster said they will never give up the battle to win back their daughter and two sons after the Appeal Court ruled this week that it was 'too late' for the family to be reunited.

The couple's nightmare started in October 2003 when Mrs Webster took their second son to hospital with a swollen leg. He was found to have a number of small fractures which doctors said could be caused only by physical abuse. The following year they were permanently removed and put up for adoption after a one-day court hearing.

Medical experts later concluded that the injuries were not caused by violent twisting and shaking, but were symptoms of rare case of scurvy. Mr Webster, 35, and his 27-year-old wife fled to Ireland in 2006 to stop their fourth child, Brandon, being taken into care at birth.

The Appeal Court ruled on Wednesday that even though the Websters 'may well' have been victims of a miscarriage of justice the adoption order on their eldest three children could not be revoked because the youngsters are now settled with their adoptive parents.

The couple have not seen the children, now aged nine, seven and five, since they were put up for adoption four years ago.

You want a model of unjust government? It's right there. Right there in one story. Screw up the investigation, take the kids, then refuse to let the parents have their kids.

I'm not honestly not sure how I would react in their situation. Let's just say: "not well". Stories like these are why I hate the very idea of Child Protective Services and other similar government agencies. There is no justification for this behavior.

My heart -- and prayers -- go out to Mr. and Mrs. Webster.

I stumbled across a very interesting essay by Vern Poythress. In it, he talks about gender neutral Bibles (like the TNIV, the Good News Bible, the CEV, etc) and how they can change the meaning of the Biblical text in subtle ways.

Language nerds will probably understand and enjoy it the most, but I think his examples are worth thinking about it -- even for those of us who aren't language nerds.

We may illustrate by considering the complex challenge of translating sentences with gender-marked generic pronouns. In English the issue comes to a head only with the third-person singular personal pronoun, because all the other pronouns are unmarked for gender. The third-person singular has three genders, "he," "she," and "it." Until recently the masculine forms, "he/him/his/himself," served as default forms in generic statements. But now some people frown on this use, and so-called gender inclusive translations have sought substitutes.3

Changing from "he" to "you"

One possibility they have tried is the use of the second person "you" instead of the third-person singular.4 Consider Proverbs 12:14. The New International Version (NIV) reads: "From the fruit of his lips a man is filled with good things as surely as the work of his hands rewards him." The Good News Bible (GNB, 2d ed.) reads: "Your reward depends on what you say and what you do; you will get what you deserve." The NIV and the Hebrew, by using the third person, invite readers to see a sample case "out there," and then to apply the truth to anyone whatsoever. Certainly each reader may apply to the truth to himself. But he may also apply the truth to others whom he is counseling, just as the father counsels his son in the early chapters of Proverbs. By contrast, the second-person in the GNB invites each reader to apply the truth first of all personally. Applying the truth to others by offering them counsel is an afterthought. The directness of focus on application to the individual reader is different in the two cases. The same differences crop up again and again in changes from third person to second person in Proverbs.

Read -- or at least scan -- the whole thing.

(And, yes, it's one reason that I'm reading out of the ESV and not the TNIV these days.)

Mr. HIStalk recently did a great interview with Dr. Jordan Shlain, founder of Current Health. It was a fantastic read. Here's a sample:

I want to give you a softball question here, because I've seen your answer elsewhere, but I think it bears repeating. What's wrong with the average patient-physician-insurance company relationship that's common today?

All the incentives are all wrong. The insurance companies have an incentive to not pay the doc because its more money to them.

The fundamental problem is the patient walks into a doctor's office, kind of with someone else's credit card, and says, "I want this, this, and this". They're not paying for it. They are not accountable for it. "I want an MRI, doctor. I want a fancy blood test. I want all these things, but I don't want to pay for it. I want somebody else to pay for it."

So the fundamental problem right now is that there's no price transparency, so nobody knows what anything costs, really, number one. Number two is there's no accountability on the patient's part to bear some of the cost of what they either consume or use. I fundamentally believe that insurance, as a construct and a principal, is a financial instrument. It's not a healthcare instrument. Health insurance is no different than car insurance or life insurance. You put money in, and if something really bad happens to your car, your house, or your life, there's money on the other side of that.

Health insurance was never intended for, if you look at the old model, a sprained ankle or an eye exam or a physical exam or for minor surgery. You paid that by yourself, and if you hit your $5,000 or $10,000 deductible, you were covered. Therefore, car and home and health insurance should be and is personal bankruptcy protection. That's what's it's supposed to be. It's to protect you in the case of unforeseen catastrophic loss. ...

Go and read the full thing. You'll learn a lot.

Spreading Freedom and Saving Money: The Fiscal Impact of the D.C. Voucher Program

In August 2004 the first ever federally funded school voucher program began in Washington, D.C. Eligible students could attend a private school of their choice in the District of Columbia. Each participant received up to $7,500 for school tuition, fees, and transportation. In addition, the D.C. Public School System (DCPS) and D.C. charter school system each received $13 million in federal grants to improve their programs.

This study examines the fiscal impact of the voucher program on DCPS and the District of Columbia. The program is currently funded by the federal government and creates a net inflow of funds to both the District and DCPS. This study also examines the fiscal impact of the program under several proposed changes to the law. Those scenarios include funding the program locally, making it universally available to all D.C. public school students, and expanding capacity by including regional private schools.

Our findings include the following:

• The current program saves the city nearly $8 million, mostly because it is federally funded and includes a federal grant to public schools.
• If federal grant subsidies were withdrawn and the program were locally funded, the city would still save $258,402 due to the greater efficiency of school choice.
• A locally funded universal program would maximize the economic benefits of school choice, saving $3 million.
• The process by which both DCPS and its schools are funded is not conducive to efficiency or excellence. The voucher program currently allows the central administration to retain an even higher share of overall funding than it did previously, leaving the management of reduced expenditures predominately at the school level. A universal school choice program could help to put a larger share of resources into the hands of schools.

Full Text (PDF, 763 KB)

The Obama administration is working on a mortgage bailout plan. Supposedly, they only want to help the people who are responsible home owners. That's a good aim. Given that 41% of modified mortgages end in default, we shouldn't send good taxpayer money after bad results. If the administration is sincere about their desires, I have a proposal.

We should only help homeonwers who have either made a significant investment or spent a significant amount on their house. Here's how I define those terms.

A significant investor is someone who has equity equal to at least 20% of the purchase price of their house. For example, someone who took out a loan for $200,000 would need to have already paid off $40,000 in order to qualify for assistance. Anyone who owns less than that, isn't really a home owner -- they're more like renters with extra privileges. We should only help those who have invested a significant amount in their homes. They've already proven that they can meet payments and put considerable resources into their homes. They're likely to continue doing so, given a little help.

A significant spender is someone who spent at least 6 months gross salary on a downpayment. They're someone who has demonstrated an ability to scrimp, save, and plan for the future. They've locked up a considerable amount of capital in their house and made sacrifices to do so. They've already demonstrated an ability to manage their money and defer spending. They're likely to continue doing so, given a little help.

Both of these criteria would apply no matter what the current value of the house is. Those who are prepared to stay in their house long-term shouldn't be worried about whether or not their mortgage is currently underwater. It may yet rise back above water. And if it doesn't, the government shouldn't be worried about helping them earn a profit on their investment. Rather, our sole focus should be on keeping responsible homeowners in their homes, if at all possible.

These two criteria can help us identify who the responsible homeowners truly are. What happens after they've been helped over their current financial short fall is up to them.

What do you think?

(Updated on Feb 25, to reflect James' suggestion.)

When it comes to assessing the romantic playing field -- who might be interested in whom -- men and women were shown to be equally good at gauging men's interest during an Indiana University study involving speed dating -- and equally bad at judging women's interest.

"The hardest-to-read women were being misperceived at a much higher rate than the hardest-to-read men. Those women were being flirtatious, but it turned out they weren't interested at all," said lead author Skyler Place, a doctoral student in IU's Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences working with cognitive science Professor Peter Todd. "Nobody could really read what these deceptive females were doing, including other women."

-- from Newswise Social and Behavioral Sciences News | Observers of First Dates Can Predict Outcome

Huh. So guys who complain of being led on aren't just making it up.

Democrats Affirm Support for Daschle

Senate Democrats rallied around Obama's Health nominee Tom Daschle, despite his failure to pay over $100,000 in taxes in a timely fashion.

And that, right there, is what's wrong with Washington. Last night, I heard political analysts on CNN saying that Daschle would likely be confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services because "he's really very embarrassed by this" and "it's hard to overstate just how much he's liked and respected in Washington".

Well, he's neither liked nor respected in my household. If I had "failed to pay over $100,000 in taxes in a timely manner" I'd be more than just embarrassed. I'd be on my way to prison after a high-profile prosecution by the IRS. The IRS, you may remember, is headed by tax cheat Tim Geithner.

I have two questions: 1) why do President Obama's appointees get to ignore the rule of law and escape the consequences of their inaction? 2) What happened to the change that President Obama was supposed to bring to Washington? At least President Bush's appointees set the example by paying their taxes. And, if they didn't, their nominations were withdrawn.

This is certainly change, but it isn't the change I expected.

Coffee Linked to Lower Dementia Risk

A 21-year study finds that moderate coffee drinkers are much less likely to develop Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia.

Well, no hope for me then. I can't stand the taste of coffee.

Private colleges want equitable portion of need-based state aid

Tough. They're private. Try lowering your prices for needy students, not charging someone else (namely the forgotten taxpayer) who doesn't have a say in the matter.

I have a tendency towards quick anger. Every time life doesn't go my way -- kids want attention, wife needs something done (or leave something undone), customers want immediate answers, snow blankets the area, or idiots on the Beltline ruin my commute -- I get angry. I know that the world isn't treating my fairly and I resent having to put up with it.

Perhaps you've noticed, just from the tenor of some of my previous posts?

In the last year, God has shown me that my anger is really directed at him. After all, he's in control of everything. Why didn't he give me better kids, a better wife, more patient customers, better weather and better drivers? Doesn't he know whom I am? Does't he care? Slowly, He's been changing me. He's been making me more humble and less angry.

There's a new book I may want to pick up and read through.

Written by Wayne Mack and Deborah Howard it is titled simply It's Not Fair. Mack deals with the very attitude I had fallen into. "From years of personal and counseling experience," he writes, "I know that nothing is more damaging to us spiritually, emotionally, mentally, and behaviorally than responding to the unpleasant, unwanted, and (in our judgment) undeserved attitude of life with the 'it's not fair' attitude." We fight against this attitude with a properly knowledge of who God is. "Nothing is more helpful to us in overcoming the tragic results of being infected with the 'it's not fair' attitude than possessing the knowledge of who and what God really is and the implications of that knowledge."

In this book, Mack focuses on four aspects of God's character that he thinks are the most useful in counteracting and destroying the devastation brought about by the "it's not fair" attitude. He looks to God's wisdom, love, sovereignty and justice. These characteristics, taken individually and together, counter an attitude that we are somehow getting less than we deserve. "Sometimes we are angry at other people, and sometimes we're angry about situations or circumstances. Ultimately, we are angry with God, regardless of how well we disguise it--even to ourselves."

Who should you fear more, rich people or your local government bureaucrats? That's an easy question. You should fear the nice lady down at Village Hall. She has far more control over your life than any member of the upper class.

Walter Williams states it beautifully.

Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, with about $60 billion in assets each, are America's richest men. With all that money, what can they force us to do? Can they take our house to make room so that another person can build an auto dealership or a casino parking lot? Can they force us to pay money into the government-run retirement Ponzi scheme called Social Security? Can Buffett and Gates force us to bus our children to schools out of our neighborhood in the name of diversity? Unless they are granted power by politicians, rich people have little power to force us to do anything.

A GS-9, or a lowly municipal clerk, has far more life-and-death power over us. It's they to whom we must turn to for permission to build a house, ply a trade, open a restaurant and myriad other activities. It's government people, not rich people, who have the power to coerce and make our lives miserable. Coercive power goes a long way toward explaining political corruption.

I don't fear the rich. I fear a President and Congress who think they know how to run my life better than I do. I fear state and local governments that have the power to fine and imprison me if I don't live by their prejudices. I fear the government.

Do you?

The Medicare Advantage program gives seniors a choice. Instead of participating in the traditional Medicare program, they can "spend" their Medicare dollars on a health plan from a private insurer. President-elect Obama thinks we should eliminate that choice.

We've got to eliminate programs that don't work, and I'll give you an example in the health care area. We are spending a lot of money subsidizing the insurance companies around something called Medicare Advantage, a program that gives them subsidies to accept Medicare recipients but doesn't necessarily make people on Medicare healthier.

And if we eliminate that and other programs, we can potentially save $200 billion out of the health care system that we're currently spending, and take that money and use it in ways that are actually going to make people healthier and improve quality. So what our challenge is going to be is identifying what works and putting more money into that, eliminating things that don't work, and making things that we have more efficient.

His statement is a blatant misrepresentation of Medicare Advantage. The money isn't a subsidy, it's a payment. The government gives the health plan a fixed amount of money and in return the health plan cares for the senior. If the senior's health care costs less than the payment, the health plan makes money. If not, the health plan loses money. It's a great incentive for the health plans to find cost-effective ways to treat people.

Eliminating that incentive won't "make people healthier and improve quality". It will probably bloat costs -- traditional Medicare pays doctors for each service performed, regardless of need or outcome.

No, this isn't about saving money or increasing quality. This is about kicking my grandmother off of her much-loved Kaiser Permanente plan and forcing her back into the arms of government bureaucrats. It's about increasing the government's control over us and eliminating our health care choices.

The Internet is not, in fact, a seething mass of sex criminals just waiting to attack unsuspecting children. Anyone who's spent any amount of time online knows that, but now we finally have proof. Report Finds Online Threats to Children Overblown - NYTimes.com

The task force, led by the Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society. looked at scientific data on sexual predation on the Internet and found that children and teenagers are very unlikely to be propositioned by adults online. In the cases that do exist, the report said, teenagers are typically willing participants and are at risk in other ways (with poor home environments, depression or substance abuse, for example).

The report criticized previous findings that one in five or one in seven minors are sexually propositioned online, saying that in a strong majority of those situations, a child's peers are responsible for the proposition, which typically amounts to an act of harassment or teasing.

In what social networks may view as something of an exoneration after years of pressure from law enforcement, the report said that sites like MySpace and Facebook "do not appear to have increased the overall risk of solicitation" and that "posting personally identifying information does not appear to increase risk in and of itself."