Category: Guest Authors

Christie Vs Tesla

By Chris Freind

Well, it’s official. Chris Christie has lost it.

No, not his weight. And not the widespread notion of his involvement in the Bridgegate scandal.

It’s much worse. He’s lost his mind.

In an act that defies comprehension, Christie veered off the road of common sense when his Motor Vehicle Commission barred auto manufacturers from selling directly to the public. Christie’s “fiat” mandating that all cars be sold through dealers has kept the special interests’ status quo alive and well, and amounts to a hit-and-run on that thing called the free market.

In hitching his trailer to New Jersey’s car dealer lobby, Christie
has shown his true colors as an elitist country club Republican firmly
in the backseat of big business — will of the people be damned.
Ironically, this is a U-turn in the perception of Christie, whose
brusque, tell-it-like-it-is style had earned him a rare “man of the
people” status.

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but it is
hard to see any good intent in Christie’s latest dictate. Which leads
one to ask if Chris Christie really is who his critics claim him to be —
just another good ol’ boy who talks a great game but is no different
than the typical Jersey pol. How many times can you give Christie the benefit of the doubt? And on this one, there’s no he-said, she-said. The decision to jump in bed with the car dealers has Christie’s hood emblem all over it. And it’s really tough to stomach.

The center of the storm involves upstart electric carmaker
Tesla Motors, whose innovative business model cuts out the middleman, with the company selling directly to the public through storefront offices and the Internet. As a result of the rule change, Tesla’s two successful retail New Jersey locations, as well as two planned service centers, will close. Isn’t this the same Chris Christie who said he wanted to create jobs, not eliminate them?

Several points come to mind regarding this car-wreck policy:

1. Is this really the image the Republican Party wants or needs?
Being in bed with business plays right into the stereotype of who is
controlling the GOP. And being nakedly anti-competition rankles
conservatives to such an extent that even more will abandon the Party and bolt to the Libertarian ranks. Strong-arming such rule changes also alienates good-government types, many of whom are swing voters. Given that the Republicans have been looking at the Democrats’ taillights for quite awhile, this unpopular policy is the last thing with which the party’s leaders should be associated.

2. Tesla, which had been selling cars in New Jersey for over a year,
said the Christie administration went back on its word by unilaterally deciding on the matter. Previously, the arrangement had been to allow the Legislature to handle it in a fair, public manner. Given Christie’s track record of late, the benefit of the doubt has to go to Tesla.

The Legislature has every reason to be upset by Christie’s bypassing
that body, calling into question the governor’s respect for the
separation of powers. Enacting such a far-reaching rule change should be the domain of elected lawmakers, not bureaucrats in vehicle commissions.

3. The rule is a kick in the teeth to competition and fair play, not
to mention the innovation that Tesla has brought to the industry. Will
automakers selling directly to the public be a winning business
strategy? No one knows, but that’s what the free market is all about:
Coming up with bold ideas, takings risks and seeing if the public likes
what is offered. The Tesla business model should rise or fall on
people’s choices — not government intervention based on the deep pockets
of special interest groups.

The new rule, in addition to mandating new cars be sold by
franchisees, requires a dealer’s facility to have 1,000 square feet of
display area, with showroom space for at least two cars, and equipment
to service vehicles — none of which fits into Tesla’s business model.
Who is the government to tell a company how to market and sell its
products? Seems like the car dealer lobby just got a ticket on the
government gravy train, courtesy of hundreds of thousands in campaign
contributions to the governor.

4. New Jersey is not alone enacting these laws. Texas and Arizona —
both Republican-dominated states — have anti-Tesla regulations on the
books, and a number of other states controlled by both parties are
considering them. Why? No idea.

So perhaps someone smarter could decipher the words of Jim Appleton,
president of the New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers, when he
chided, “What is it about Tesla that makes them immune from the concerns
of zero price competition and a monopoly market, or not fully and
fairly administering safety and recall services?”

He lost me at immune.

If incoherent babblings about recalls,
service and price controls are the best arguments proponents have, this
will be an easy victory lap through the courts for Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
And make no mistake. This rule is clearly unconstitutional on a number
of fronts, such as the Interstate Commerce and Equal Protection Clauses.

There is much more at stake here than how cars are sold. It
is an issue that deals with the environment (electric cars generate no
carbon emissions), honest competition, government interference in the
marketplace, the need for term limits and the role of deep-pocketed
special interests in shaping policies for the benefit of a few, to the
detriment of many. Allowing such a rule to stand would send a message
that America is a nation where the rights of the individual are trumped
by big business and corrupt government. And at that point, we will have
lost our uniqueness.

As the race to the White House begins, the call is going out for
candidates to start their engines. For Chris Christie, this latest
head-on collision will ensure that he won’t be in the driver’s seat.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Christie Vs Tesla
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Christie Vs Tesla

 

Union Members Like Paycheck Protection

Government unions aren’t about fightingfor public employees and workers any more — they’ve become political operations with agendas that harm both their members and taxpayers. Americans, and even union members themselves, increasingly realize that public-sector unions often do not serve the public interest.

As a consequence, several states — including Washington, Idaho, Utah, Michigan, and Wisconsin — have passed commonsense “paycheck protection” laws to protect employees and taxpayers from being abused by union bosses. Lawmakers in my home state of Pennsylvania are looking to follow their lead. The idea is so sensible that polling suggests the majority of members of Pennsylvania union households support it.

Paycheck protection is a simple reform that would prohibit
taxpayer-funded “automatic deduction” of dues and campaign contributions
from government-union members’ paychecks. Current law grants government
union leaders the unique privilege of using public resources (the
government payroll system) to collect their union dues and PAC money,
which they use for lobbying and political activity. Dues are mandatory
and can go to certain political purposes, while members can agree to
make extra donations to PACs — also collected by the state payroll
system — which can be spent on almost any political activity.

Like every politically privileged group, union leaders are fighting
tooth and nail to hold on to this unfair advantage. Recently,
Pennsylvania’s union bosses stormed our state capitol to protest
paycheck protection by ranting against “big corporations” and even
leading obscene chants. Yet union leaders danced around the core policy
issue: whether taxpayer resources should be used for politics.

Perhaps that’s because many bussed-in union protesters actually
supported the concept of paycheck protection. When Media Trackers asked protesters
why they thought the government should collect their union dues, union
members answered that government shouldn’t be involved. Ironically, this
is exactly what paycheck protection would mean.

In fact, this is the view of most union members. In a new survey
of union households in Pennsylvania, we found that a large majority
support paycheck-protection legislation. Nearly two-thirds agreed that
such a law would empower workers to have greater control over how their
money is spent on politics. Moreover, an overwhelming 80 percent of
union households said taxpayer resources should not be used to collect
campaign contributions.

Several Pennsylvania legislators have recently gone to prison for
using taxpayer resources for politics. Yet government unions are
permitted to essentially engage in this practice right under the capitol
dome and in public schools across our state.

Taxpayer-funded collection of government-union political money gives
union bosses an unfair political advantage. In Pennsylvania, government
unions reported spending nearly $5 million in dues on political activity
and lobbying in 2012, plus more than $2.6 million in campaign
contributions. All of that money was collected using public resources
and sent directly to union bosses.

Nationally, the numbers are even more astounding: Labor unions spent more than $1.6 billion on politics in 2011 and 2012.

While government-union bosses argue their political spending will
“protect the middle class,” the policies they support actually harm
middle-class families, including their own members.

Here in Pennsylvania, union politicking recently blocked pension
reform — resulting in higher taxes and teacher layoffs — and
liquor-store privatization, despite overwhelming public support for the
latter measure, even among union members. Union-funded ad campaigns
against charter schools prevented thousands of children from escaping
violent and failing schools. Government unions lobbied for Obamacare
too, to the detriment of school employees and taxpayers.

Matt Eason, a teacher in the Philadelphia suburbs, opposes his
union’s politics: “It’s going against, not only my beliefs and morals
and values,” he says. “It’s something I don’t want to support, but I
don’t have a choice.”

Because Pennsylvania is a compulsory union state (as opposed to a
right-to-work one), paycheck protection would empower teachers like Matt
to hold his union accountable. Instead of automatically deducting money
from his paycheck, union leaders would have to look Matt in the face
each pay period to explain how the union plans to spend his money, and
ask for his dues.

Paycheck protection doesn’t silence union voices in politics; nor
does it hinder unions’ ability to collectively bargain. It certainly
isn’t right to work. It simply means that government unions will have to
collect their own dues and political money just like every other
private political organization.

Paycheck protection would, however, do one thing that both sides of
the political aisle should agree on: Stop spending taxpayer money on
politics.

Matthew J. Brouillette, a former history
teacher, is the president and CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation,
Pennsylvania’s free-market think tank.


Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Union Members Like Paycheck Protection
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Union Members Like Paycheck Protection

 

Public School Funding SOS LOL

By Priya Abraham

The message—really an SOS—about public school funding came from rural Tioga County, but it’s one most Pennsylvanians have grown used to hearing.

“We are in a much, much more difficult situation than we were five or six years ago,” a teacher wrote to the Commonwealth Foundation. “We have had to cut staff, programs and even close schools in our district just to stay afloat.  We have never been able to offer many extras in our curriculum due to the size of our school and minimal tax base, but now we are down to the bare essentials.”

It’s a story playing out for teachers, parents, and students across the state: slashed staff and scaled back arts and language programs. Why? The popular myth advanced by teachers unions is that Gov. Tom Corbett cut $1 billion from public education funding three years ago.

The truth is far less dramatic—and a lot more sobering.

At the governor’s recent state budget address, the spotlight again swung to education spending. The governor has proposed $10.1 billion for public schools, slightly higher than last year, which was then a record high. So what’s all the fuss about cuts?

School districts are indeed feeling real financial stress, but this stems from a lapse of temporary federal stimulus money—not from a governor’s stinginess.

Initially, the stimulus dollars that came to Pennsylvania went to other types of government spending, like welfare. But the influx in funds allowed then-Governor Ed Rendell to spend more on public education.

However, the stimulus was only a temporary boost.  School districts, lawmakers, administrators—everyone in charge knew the money would disappear.  But rather than planning for when funding would reset, many school districts added staff and programs they couldn’t sustain.

The victims are now the students and teachers who are wondering what hit them.

While many educators are reeling, it’s important to look at the real status of education funding in Pennsylvania. Adjusted for inflation, average funding per student—made up of local, state, and federal money—has been around $14,000 since 2008.

Of that money, 58 percent goes to instruction, while 12 percent goes to construction and debt, which is one of the fastest-growing spending categories. In fact, between 1995 and 2012, spending on instruction increased 81 percent, while spending on construction and debt ballooned a whopping 171 percent.

At the same time public school officials complained of dwindling resources, they amassed $3.5 billion in reserve funds across the state’s 500 school districts and charter schools—increasing $300 million in the last year alone.

In addition, the disconnect between public school enrollment and staffing has been worsening. Teachers and staff have certainly seen layoffs in the last three years. But since 2000, schools have added 17,000 staff while the number of students actually fell by 60,000.

Over 15 years, administrators and other professional staff grew 40 percent, and support staff 18 percent, while the number of teachers rose only 14 percent.

In short, public school funding been rising—but it hasn’t always been spent in ways that would best benefit our children. And budgets will be squeezed further by the school employee pension system crisis, which holds nearly $33 billion in debt.

To survive, we must spend more effectively. A good start is reforming the broken student funding formula for school districts, which holds funding steady regardless of enrollment changes. As a consequence, districts with growing student populations often receive too little funding.

Another solution is to allow school districts to pre-pay their future pension obligations using their reserve funds. School boards should also be permitted to opt out of prevailing wage mandates, which artificially inflate their construction costs. And schools must be able to keep their best teachers, regardless of age or experience—a commonsense practice currently prevented by state seniority law.

If we’re to help teachers in Tioga and across Pennsylvania, changing we fund public schools—not just —will be critical.  If not, teachers, students, and taxpayers will be paying far into the future.

Priya Abraham is a senior policy analyst for the Commonwealth Foundation, Pennsylvania’s free market think tank.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Public School Funding SOS LOL
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Public School Funding SOS LOL

 

Befriend Cuba Already

By Chris Freind

In 1961, an American-backed, CIA-trained paramilitary force stormed Cuba in the hopes of deposing Fidel Castro. After an initial victory, the counter-revolutionaries were routed, proving a major embarrassment to the United States and reinforcing the notion throughout Central America that the U.S. was a nation hellbent on imperialism. That ill-fated operation came to be known as the Bay of Pigs.

Over the last 53 years, America’s policy has been, and continues to be, isolating Cuba through a strict embargo in the hope that its socialist government collapses. Given that a half-century has gone by with no results, it’s safe to say that the policy is flawed, and the leaders who refuse to change it are pigheaded.

But what else is new dealing with our own hemisphere?

America freely gave away one its most strategic assets, the Panama Canal, while gaining nothing. It is continually at odds with Venezuela, which happens to have the world’s largest proven oil reserves. And it can’t gain Mexico’s good-faith cooperation to control drugs and illegal immigration. Rectifying any of those, let alone all three, is an extremely tall order, no matter what party controls Washington.

That’s not exactly a stellar track record. But with bold leadership and foresight (along with a little humility), we can change direction and gain huge victories for freedom and free enterprise right in our backyard.

It’s called befriending Cuba.

To be fair, enacting the embargo on and restricting Americans’ access to Cuba during the height of the Cold War, when Castro cozied up to the Soviet Union, was reasonable. Common sense should have told us that if it didn’t produce the desired results in five or even 10 years, it was never going to work. But since political common sense is an oxymoron, the sanctions continue to this day.

As a result, Americans and American products are denied a huge market within close proximity. We lose access to cheap Cuban goods, and perhaps most important, the relatives of Cuban-Americans continue to suffer under authoritarian rule in a stagnant economy, while U.S. law makes family reunions in Cuba all but illegal.

Since it would be a win for everyone to lift the embargo and improve relations, it’s a fair question to ask why we aren’t doing so. Consider:

1. Too many presidential candidates (along with Florida’s congressional delegation) still bow to the demands of an increasingly small but highly vocal minority of Cuban Americans who detest the notion of “helping” a Cuba ruled by anyone named Castro. Given Florida’s paramount importance in electoral politics, it’s understandable for candidates to think that opposing this lobby could lose them the state (much like opposing ethanol subsidies in Iowa).

But they have failed to see that the Cuban voting bloc is no longer tied to the embargo issue as it had been decades ago. The number of first-wave Cuban refugees with the strongest passion are dwindling, and each successive generation not only places less importance on the sanctions, but view closer ties as the path to prosperity.

Being beholden to a special interest is never good, but placating one that doesn’t exist is stupidity.

2. Despite the embargo, development in Cuba is on the upswing, fueled by European businesses that are snatching up the prime real estate and business opportunities — an easy task when American competitors are nonexistent. American jobs take a hit, and economic growth lags when it should be booming. If the embargo’s objective was (and is) to collapse the Cuban economy, and it didn’t work before, it certainly can’t be successful now that numerous other countries are stepping up Cuban involvement. It’s time for us to get in the game.

3. No one likes to admit they were wrong, but 53 years of isolation with nothing to show? We can’t wait for three minutes at the drive-thru without complaining, yet, we patiently adhere to a woefully ineffective law that will soon approach six decades of failure. What exactly do we think will miraculously change?

4. The embargo hurts the very people we purport to be helping: The Cubans themselves. By denying them economic opportunities, we keep them in poverty with no chance at prosperity. The way to win people’s hearts is through their wallets, as a growing middle class produces stability and respect for law — a rising tide that floats all boats. Yet, that unique American lesson is not being taught.

5. Defenders of the embargo love to rattle off conditions Cuba needs to meet: institute human rights; hold fair elections; free political prisoners; embrace democratic ideals; and compensate families of the oppressed. Gee, that’s nice. And it would be great if the world were filled with rainbows and lollipops! Except that it’s not. To make those demands shows a naivete at best, and hypocrisy at worst.

If those are prerequisites for doing business with other nations, our list of trading partners would shrink to Antarctica and Santa’s workshop.

Out-of-touch politicians aside, there is a growing call to lift the embargo and increase diplomatic, economic and cultural ties with Cuba.

In doing so, America would get back to what it does best: Be a beacon of hope to the world, showcasing that freedom and capitalism are its biggest exports. China still has a long way to go, but America, not through force but by its values, has transformed that nation in a revolutionary way, guiding it toward liberalism (small “l”). A vibrant middle-class has been born and they are starting to taste the good life as more freedoms are earned and opportunities realized.

If we can accomplish that with China, doing the same with Cuba, with its dynamic people and incredible cultural heritage, would be a walk in the park.

So let’s build a bridge to our neighbor just 90 miles from our shores, and tear down that wall.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Befriend Cuba Already
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Befriend Cuba Already

 

Panama Lessons Must Be Remembered

By Chris Freind

The great ship moved silently through the water, knifing the
jet-black Caribbean Sea as it approached Panama. As dawn broke and the
fog lifted, it finally appeared, in all its glory: The massive Gatun
locks of the Panama Canal, lifting ships 1,000 feet long and 90,000 tons
85 feet above sea level to a water bridge crossing the Continental
Divide and connecting the Pacific. The 50-mile canal, separating two
continents but uniting the world, shaves a whopping 8,000 miles off a
run from New York to San Francisco. A dream that goes as far back as
Columbus undisputedly stands as one of the greatest achievements of in
all of human history.

Yet it almost never came to be, as centuries’ worth of attempts to
construct a path between the seas all resulted in disaster due to
ineptitude, disease and the deaths of more than 30,000 workers.

So what changed? Who found success where others had failed? How were
seemingly impossible obstacles, literal and otherwise, bulldozed on the
path to victory?

Easy. The United States got involved.

As we look back from this 100th year anniversary of the canal, it’s
abundantly clear that “America” was synonymous with “greatness” at that
point in history. The country was alive and vibrant, forging ahead with
bold ideas carried to fruition by bold leaders. Men like Teddy
Roosevelt, who innately understood what was in America’s strategic
interests and pursued those initiatives with a gusto that made success a
foregone conclusion. Failure simply wasn’t in the lexicon.

How things have changed. The nation that once valued decisiveness
over impotence, and risk over fear, somehow morphed into a timid,
risk-averse politically correct shell of its former glory that too often
tries to be all things to all people — so long as those people aren’t
its own citizens.

And there is no better example of that warped mindset than the
giveaway of the Panama Canal. While seeing the canal makes one gape in
sheer awe, it also evokes a fury, a constant “what were we thinking?”
refrain, reinforcing a notion that our nation is in decline, entirely of
our own making.

An outline of the canal’s history seems too far-fetched to be true,
as it defies the common sense expected of the world’s most powerful
nation:

» Thousands die trying to connect the oceans. Project declared impossible.

» America defies the odds by constructing canal ahead of schedule and under budget.

» America saves countless lives by eradicating yellow fever and
discovering the cause of, and thus controlling, the region’s ultimate
killer: Malaria.

» America operates canal not for profit but to facilitate
international commerce, even for those not trading with the United
States.

» America, despite its 85 years of flawless operation, freely gives
the canal to Panama in exchange for absolutely nothing, netting a zero
return on investment.

» American ships now pay massively increased fees (passed on to
American consumers) while Panama laughs all the way to the bank.

» Despite the giveaway, America continues to guarantee Panama’s security in perpetuity, with no benefit to the U.S.

If this story weren’t so tragic, it would be a comic, because giving
away the canal made America’s strategic vision a complete joke.

President Jimmy Carter negotiated and signed the 1977 treaty giving
away the canal (which took effect in 1999). The list of American
giveaways is substantial: The canal itself, the huge Gatun Lakes dam,
the hydroelectric plant, the isthmus-wide railroad, and the 10-mile wide
Panama Canal zone, with all its infrastructure. Rubbing salt in the
wound, even Titan, one of America’s largest cranes (war booty from
Hitler’s Germany) was given to the Panamanians in 1999 after 50 years of
operation in Long Beach, Calif. All invalidate the blood, sweat and
yes, deaths, of the Americans who worked so proudly on the canal.

Perhaps most startling, no consideration was given to America for all
it had done, despite it being the largest user, by far, of the canal.
Virtually all the new equipment, from the “mule” trains that guide the
ships to the massive steel doors going into the enlarged locks now under
construction, is made everywhere but America.

Five other nations are involved in the construction of the new locks,
but America is not one of them. And yet that consortium has already
experienced money problems, labor disputes and cost overruns for the $5
billion project, whereas we spend that amount every 12 hours. Nor does
America manage the large ports on either side of the canal. Instead,
that honor goes to China. Naturally.

Not only does Panama rake in $2 billion annually from its fees, but
it doesn’t spend a penny on an army, because thanks to Uncle Sam, it
doesn’t have one. So if Nicaragua becomes belligerent, American men and
women will fight and die solely for Panama’s sake. Help me out on that
one.

Some may ask, “Nice history lesson, but why bring it up now? What’s done is done.”

Wrong, for two reasons:

1. While the treaty won’t be scrapped,
America could clearly exact concessions from Panama to benefit American
shippers and consumers. Our ships, at a minimum, should receive a
substantial discount for passage (the Colombian Navy passes for free. Go
figure). Those savings would make our products and companies more
competitive, and keep jobs in America. If Panama resists, the protection
deal could be immediately revoked along with all other foreign aid to
Panama. No third-world country should be dictating to America,
especially one in our own backyard.

2. Infinitely more important, it should be a wake-up call to stop
engaging in one-sided deals that only hurt America. The Panama giveaway
is not an isolated incident, but a mindset that persists to this day.

Both parties are complicit, but it is we the people who are
ultimately to blame, as we no longer demand excellence and strategic
vision from our leaders. Instead, mediocrity with no eye to the future
rules the day, and with it, a lingering pessimism that seems destined to
be with us until a leader like Teddy Roosevelt emerges. Someone who, in
Teddy’s words, “is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust
and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly … who spends himself in a
worthy cause … so that his place shall never be with those cold and
timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

Let’s re-read our history, learn from our mistakes and regain the greatness that is uniquely American.

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Panama Lessons Must Be Remembered
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Panama Lessons Must Be Remembered

Paycheck Protection Lies

By Bob Dick

Should you be forced to subsidize government union politics? That’s the question asked by a reform gaining steam in Harrisburg called paycheck protection. But you wouldn’t know it by listening to government union bosses, who are deliberately misrepresenting paycheck protection legislation and engaging in personal attacks on its supporters in an effort to preserve their exclusive political privilege.

Pennsylvania law allows government union bosses—and only government union bosses—to negotiate the use of public resources to bundle union dues and political money and send it to union headquarters. In many cases, this dubious deal is made with politicians who receive contributionsand campaign support funded by the same political money.

Paycheck protection would end this flagrant conflict of interest and level the political playing field for all.

Given their lucrative arrangement, it’s no surprise that government union leaders don’t want to play by the same rules as everyone else. They’ve launched a misinformation campaign to confuse the public and their own members about the details of paycheck protection.

For starters, they claim that only a few outside interest groups support paycheck protection.  In reality, nearly 80 percent of Pennsylvanians—including 75 percent of union members—believe taxpayer resources should not be used to collect union dues and campaign contributions, according to a recent poll of likely voters.

Government union leaders also claim that paycheck protection is actually “Right to Work” in disguise. The truth is paycheck protection doesn’t affect government unions’ ability to collectively bargain. Even if paycheck protection were to pass, government workers—like most public school teachers in the state—would still have to pay union dues or fees or lose their jobs.

So, what would change? Government union leaders would simply have to collect their dues and campaign contributions directly from workers, rather than forcing taxpayers to do it for them. Either union bosses don’t understand the legislation, or they’re intentionally misleading their members and the public.

Another pernicious claim about paycheck protection is that it constitutes an attack on union members’ free speech. Nothing could be further from the truth. Paycheck protection does not stop government unions from spending money on politics; it merely removes taxpayers from the process of collecting their political money.

The U.S. Supreme Court agrees that paycheck protection supports, rather than violates, freedom of speech. In 2009, the court ruled in Ysursa v. Pocatello that Idaho’s paycheck protection law, which ended taxpayer collection of political money, “does not restrict political speech, but rather declines to promote that speech by allowing public employee check-offs for political activities.”

Indeed, requiring union leaders to collect their own political money would actually make them more responsive to members’ free speech rights.

Perhaps government union bosses’ greatest trick is claiming that dues cannot be used for politics. In reality, union dues fund a variety of political activities including lobbying, candidate endorsements, get-out-the-vote efforts, candidate and issue advocacy, contributions to “independent” political and partisan organizations, and fundraising for campaign contributions.

Pennsylvania’s major government unions spent nearly $5 million of members’ dues on lobbying and political activities in 2012—that’s according to their own reports to the U.S. Department of Labor.

Moreover, union Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions are also collected via public payroll systems. Government union PACs contributed an additional $4 million directly to candidates during the 2011-12 elections.

This perverse power cycle allows elected officials to sign checks giving money to union PACs and later accept campaign contributions from those same PACs!

Former State Senator Jane Orie was recently released from prison after being convicted of using public resources for campaigning. Why do we allow government union leaders to engage in the same behavior without batting an eye?

The debate over paycheck protection must be informed by facts, not half-truths or conspiracy theories from those clinging to their government-granted political privilege. Here’s the bottom line: Public resources should never be used for partisan politics.

This article was provided by Commonwealth Foundation

 

Paycheck Protection Lies at BillLawrenceDittos.com
Paycheck Protection Lies at BillLawrenceOnline.com

 

Obamacare Tortures Disabled

Obamacare Tortures Disabled

While the negative issues with Obamacare abound, one chronic disease treatment issue reveals the underlying purpose for the existence of Obamacare.  It is not universal access to care.  It is about the routine, codified inhumane cruelty of denying  treatment for the global purpose of skimming money from the sick and the elderly. Jim Angle of Fox News gets close but no cigar. Kudos to Mr. Angle  and Fox for reporting this story.
From Fox’s Report: “One of the problems is that drugs for some diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis do not have generic versions so without cheaper alternatives and no help from ObamaCare, patients could face huge personal out-of-pocket bills, forcing some to skimp on their medications”

There will be no out of pocket to face if the cost is so unreachable as to in all practicality deny Obamacare treatment.  It comes to MS there is no “skimping on your meds”  You are being treated or you are not.  There is no inexpensive one-size-fits all treatment.  As Mr. Angle reports, there are no generic drugs for MS.  Most advances in the treatment of MS have been made in the last 15 years or so. Thus the ONLY real treatments are only a few years on the market or even months. These meds require a regular and consistent administration of the drug. There is no “skimping” in Multiple Sclerosis. A person is  being treated with the right drug, at the right dose or they are not.   A person will either live happily with treatment or they will live languishing in pain and isolation.

Mr. Angle’s report supports this: “this may drive patients to not buy their medicines, which we know is dangerous. We know MS can be a bad disease when you’re not treating it. When you’re treating it, for most people they handle it pretty well, but we know when you don’t treat (it), it’s the kind of disease where people end up in wheel chairs potentially.”

Multiple Sclerosis slowly takes away a person’s abilities to think, to move, to care for themselves. There is often considerable pain involved. Yet a person does not die from the disease, but from its secondary effects.  As helpless as we can become, we live almost as long as a healthy person does with whatever pain and disabilities we have.

This is exactly why the MS drugs have been excluded from the Obamacare formulary.  The formularies of many other drug plans   have been altered to reflect the cost savings ideology of Obamacare, including the formulary of Medicare D.  MS treatment is expensive and it lasts a lifetime.  This was not an unconscious move on the part of the authors of the ACAs. It is a targeted move.  To the socialist central planner types, it is a gold mine of expenditure denial

Thus denial of treatment of Multiple Sclerosis patients is codified into the Obamacare nightmare.

Since my diagnosis in 2002, many new treatments have been developed with the power to slow the advance of the disease and often improve the quality of life. A new drug called Tysabri gave me new life. Although I was still affected by the disease, it lifted what is known as brain fog, improved my endurance, and lessened the crushing fatigue. I went from frequent use of a walker, to the use of a cane. It was nothing short of miraculous.

I developed antibodies in 2013 that made treatment with Tysabri no longer advisable, even after years of positive results. My physician recommended that I begin taking a new pill, I will call Drug X. Paperwork was submitted the second week in November to the manufacturer who had a program to facilitate start-up treatment.

I was told by my private insurance companies navigator that my coverage by my private insurance had changed because of Obamacare. My private insurance, a benefit gained as compensation during my working years, would cover this drug but so minimally as to be useless. You can’t buy half or a quarter of a pill.  In order to be treated, I must come up with approximately 50 grand a year, cash, out of pocket.

It might as well be a million.

My desperate personal trip to the private drug plan web site without “navigator” assistance revealed that I was covered for the cost of the drug minus my co-pay. There may also be a deductible of about 3 grand.  I called the navigators for both the drug insurance and the drug’s manufacturer and told them that I had determined that I was indeed covered and sent them screen shots of the on-line determination of benefits.

At this writing, I have since received my first dose with observation (as required by FDA) of Drug X and suffered no detectable side effects.  I am feeling much better. However because of the pattern of inaccuracy established by multiple navigators, I cannot be sure of this untåil it is time to check out the drug shipment with the Specialty Pharmacy.

The charge could be one hundred dollars or thousands.  I still don’t know with any certainty. If it is thousands, I will simply not be able to be treated.  I will remain untreated and be left to the consequences of the disease.   I will not bankrupt my family for the “greater good” that Obamacare alleges.  I am sadly confident that others will be forced toå make the same choice.

The take away from this narrative is not that poor me doesn’t have access to treatment.  The brutal fact is that Obamacare offers NO drugs for the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis.  Consequently, all people with MS will by default be denied treatment.  Inclusion in the Obamacare formulary is based on per patient per drug, per cost.  Multiple Sclerosis?  Sorry.   Lupus?  Any life long disease with only non-generic treatments? Sorry, no help for you.  What other treatments does Obamacare deny?

People with MS and other neurological diseases will likely stay alive in spite of the denial of treatment, but they and their families will be burdened with their horrific quality of life.  So as untreated patients can anticipate a future that includes visions of some day lying in their own waste, they can be assured that their colonoscopy will be free.

Ms. Carfagno broadcasts and publishes on FreedomRadioRocks.com. She has M.S.

 

Obamacare Tortures Disabled

How Obamacare Tortures Disabled

Fear Takes Over

By Chris Freind

If running scared was an Olympic sport, America would get the gold. Hands down.

In stark contrast to the pioneering spirit that built this country — taking risk and enduring danger — living in fear has now become our nation’s favorite pastime.

Nowhere was that on bigger display than leading up to the Olympics in Sochi. From the government to the media, the fear-mongers were out in force, many of whom urged Americans to stay home from Games — with some all but guaranteeing catastrophic terrorist attacks.

Congressman Peter King, R-N.Y., relying on the ever-so-convenient “I can’t tell you what I know” line thrown out whenever a claim can’t be substantiated, stated, “I would not go myself. If I were an athlete, that’s one thing, but just as a spectator, I don’t think it’s worth the risk.” Incomprehensibly, though, he then said, “Odds are nothing is going to happen.”

Well, if odds are nothing will happen, why shoot your mouth off at all? It instills fear needlessly — and angers a powerful nation.

Likewise, U.S. Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, stated, “I would not go, and I don’t think I would send my family.”

Really? When did we become such wimps? It’s bad enough that some leaders are afraid to live, but to broadcast their fears is inexcusable. Without question, doing so handed every terrorist in the world a huge moral victory. The message? Make threats and watch America flee with its tail between its legs.

There would be nothing better than to see the ultimate cold warrior Vladimir Putin pull off an attack-free Olympics to show the world that the way to defeat terrorism is to take the fight right to them. Never back down, and never live in fear.

And so long as we’re keeping score in the other “metal” count — Olympic bombings — Russia still has zero, one fewer than America. And in that game, low score wins.

Kind of ironic that, despite the immense doom-and-gloom heaped upon the supposedly unsafe confines of Sochi, the only bombing deliberately targeting the Olympics occurred at the Atlanta Games in 1996, killing one and injuring more than 100.

So much for being “risk-free” in America, a point sorely lost on our leaders. Despite their attempt to sanitize everything, pretending that we can be 100 percent safe, there is, and always will be, risk. From walking out the front door to attending Olympic Games, risk goes with the territory as an everyday part of life. We can mitigate it to the best of our ability, but risk, in its infinite forms, is our lifelong companion.

It’s how we deal with risk that defines our courage and character.

?

Let’s look at several points regarding the Sochi fear factor:

1. Has the region around Sochi seen its share of terrorism? Yes, but there have been plenty of Olympic venues where terrorism was a potential threat. The separatist group ETA had a history of bombings in Spain, yet Barcelona hosted in 1992. China clearly had issues with terrorism, yet the 2008 Games were played. And who could forget the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes and a German police officer during the 1972 Olympics in Munich?

America endured bombings in Oklahoma City (1995) and Atlanta, got walloped on 9/11, and has seen countless other attacks, from the Times Square bomber to mall and school shootings — despite the best intelligence in the world. Does that mean we should never host again? Of course not. But the constant fear-hyping — especially by those who live in glass houses — takes the magic out of the Games.

2. Let’s be honest: Much of the government’s fear-mongering was politically motivated. It was payback to make Russia look bad due to major policy differences, such as its alliance with Syria, its stance on gay rights, and, most significantly, its harboring of Edward Snowden, who leaked the NSA’s spying secrets — an extreme embarrassment to the United States.

The U.S. also overstepped its bounds in criticizing Russia over its preparedness, even questioning whether it would be ready to host the Games. Well guess what? It’s been flawless. Too bad we didn’t learn from former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s major gaffe four years ago when he criticized the Brits in exactly the same way and was roundly chastised on both sides of the Atlantic. No wonder he had trouble getting foreign policy photo-ops for his campaign.

Democratic President Jimmy Carter’s boycott of the 1980 Moscow Games, followed by the Soviets’ embargo of L.A. four years later (encompassing 15 nations), were horrendous decisions. They accomplished nothing except to showcase the stupidity of shortsighted leaders while victimizing their own athletes (many of whom missed their only Olympic opportunity) and millions of fans. You want to be at odds with your adversaries? Fine. That’s life. But leave the purity of sport out of it. Stop politicizing Sochi.

3. The best security plan is the one you don’t broadcast. So, was it really necessary to tell the world (and the terrorists themselves) that our Navy moved ships into the Black Sea to help evacuate athletes and spectators in case of an attack? It has a counter-productive effect, as people start believing that an attack must be imminent given the immense preparations. The security freaks love showing off their toys, but our leaders should know better. They’d be a whole lot better off adopting former Republican President Teddy Roosevelt’s “speak softly and carry a big stick” approach rather than scaring the bejesus out of people.

?

Americans’ history of courage has been exceptional. Our Founding Fathers risked (and many lost) everything, when they could have done nothing. Americans engaged in wars to save the world from tyranny, yet never flinched. Civil rights leaders, at risk to life and limb, overcame unimaginable hurdles to achieve freedom and justice.

How have we lost such a legacy?

The real world doesn’t change. It’s always been, and always will be, filled with risk and danger. Coping with this without being a prisoner of fear is the only way for a nation, and a people, to prosper.

With the only vision that matters, Helen Keller said, “Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. The fearful are caught as often as the bold.”

In that spirit, let’s leave our fears behind and return to what made America great — always going for the gold.

 

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Fear Takes Over
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Fear Takes Over

Defending Freedom Means Proclaiming Truth

By Father Frank Pavone

It’s an election year, and it’s time to open our mouths, in the Church, about politics, candidates, and the right to life.

Our fight for our unborn brothers and sisters is a fight for freedom and against tyranny; for people and against oppressive governments. Our Founding Fathers fought this fight, and so must we, with the same readiness for self-sacrifice.

This is true for every American. How much more true is it for us as the Church, as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ? The Gospel is a Gospel of freedom. “I have come to proclaim liberty to the captives…to let the oppressed go free,” Jesus said in defining his mission.

Carrying out this mission requires the freedom to speak the truth as we understand it. Not only was this fundamental right explicitly acknowledged by our Founding Fathers and placed at the top of the Bill of Rights, but it has been affirmed time and time again by the Supreme Court, not only to point out the existence of such freedom, but also its characteristics.

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964)), the Court asserted that the protection of citizens to advocate for particular issues reflects our “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open”

In 2010, the Supreme Court also affirmed the following:

“Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment ‘has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.’”

“[I]t is inherent in the nature of the political process that voters must be free to obtain information from diverse sources in order to determine how to cast their votes.” (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)).

The corresponding freedom of the Church to speak and teach the truth — a freedom also contained in the Founders’ recognition of freedom of religion — is something explicitly insisted upon in the Church’s own documents. This freedom is, in fact, an essential aspect of the Great Commission left by Jesus Christ: “Preach the Gospel to every creature.” “Teach them to carry out everything I have commanded you.” Because the Gospel covers every aspect of life and human activity, the Church must also be free to comment on political matters. In this regard we see the following strong statement from the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes):

“At all times and in all places, the Church should have the true freedom to teach the faith, to proclaim its teaching about society, to carry out its task among men without hindrance, and to pass moral judgment even in matters relating to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it.”

Rev. Pavone is national director of Priests for Life

 

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Defending Freedom Means Proclaiming Truth
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Defending Freedom Means Proclaiming Truth

 

 

Tech Addiction Stronger Than Storm

By Chris Freind

Thank God for Starbucks. Or, more accurately, their Wi-Fi. Because of that “gift,” many who lose power during storms don’t miss a beat being themselves, otherwise known as anti-social, bratty, and downright rude behavior caused by an acute obsession with iPads and smartphones.

Hey, I love technology as much as the next guy. Lost? Activate GPS. Need to check on the kids while stuck for hours because you’re behind all the idiots who crashed their 4-wheels thinking they could do 65 in snow and ice? Call home.

But one of the saddest commentaries on society is our ridiculous addiction to technology. Go to any coffee house, restaurant or family dinner table, and you will hear very few words spoken, and see even fewer eyes, both kids’ and adults’, looking at someone else. Instead, they gaze at their phones.

I know we’re all extremely important people, but for once, couldn’t we delay text messages and Facebook updates — you know, the ones with fantastically stupid inspirational quotes and postings fishing for “Likes” and “you look awesome” comments? (Reality check: you don’t look awesome. We’re lying. Get a nose job, and please, go see a dentist.)

God forbid that in a power outage, families actually talk, play board games, or read books — real books, with real pages.

People have become so fixated with their phones that they can no longer communicate like humans, and it shows. Person-to-person conversations are becoming archaic, writing is appalling (in schools and the business world) and public speaking is abysmal.

Before this technology, surveys showed that people feared making a speech worse than dying. Since we have devolved from that point, where are we now? Do we fear it more than watching Denver in another Super Bowl?

Call me a dinosaur, but living in the ’80s, before things became so impersonal, wasn’t such a bad thing. And living for a few days like they did in the 1880s isn’t so horrible either. It builds character. Even better, when families put down the phones and actually do things together, some kids might find out they have siblings. And that there are things called sleds and snowballs and, the biggest shocker, shovels to clear neighbors’ sidewalks for money. Which is also known as “work.”

And can we stop bashing power companies, at least for now? Many East Coasters who lost power were up in arms within the first 24 hours, clearly part of the “entitlement class” who think they have the “right” to never lose power. Heavy snow, followed by ice? So what? How dare I be in the dark without heat!

To those, a simple message: shut up and buy a generator. I know. Everybody’s going to get one now because they’re fed up. Except that they won’t. They’ll talk it about ad nauseam, but once the winter ends, they’ll forget about it. Until it snows again next winter (and the cycle of complaining continues).

It is routine procedure for power companies to be audited after every large outage to gauge how well they well prepared for, and responded to, large storms. Since millions of Americans don’t yet know how their respective providers performed, let’s give those companies the benefit of the doubt and applaud the guys working 16-hour shifts in frigid weather, braving many dangers, including generators that can backfeed the lines and kill the workers.

And let’s not forget how quickly huge work forces were mobilized, as linemen typically come from far and wide. In fact, after this latest storm, crews came from two other countries: Canada and Arkansas.

Meanwhile, the debate du jour is whether we should be placing power lines underground. Great idea, but there’s nowhere near enough money to do it, as it’s ungodly expensive (estimates are a million dollars per mile).

Could we get that cost down? Probably. And, most certainly, communities should explore a 10- or 15-year underground program for the most sensitive or loss-prone areas. Power providers’ revenue comes from its customers, so there would be a rate increase, but some of the cost could also be borne by local and state governments allocating our taxpayer money (it’s ours, not theirs) to such an important initiative.

If a local utility could place between 500 to 1000 miles of wires underground per year, outages would decrease, maintenance costs would go down, and businesses would stay open — producing more tax revenue and keeping people’s paychecks rolling. It would be a win for everyone.

Government wastes billions a year (and trillions when you throw in the federal stimulus program that produced zero return on investment). So for a change, maybe we could allocate those funds more intelligently, such as securing our highly vulnerable electrical infrastructure.

But of course, that would be a common sense solution, so expect to see it when hell freezes over.

 

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Tech Addiction Stronger Than Storm
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Tech Addiction Stronger Than Storm