PA Blog

Deer hunting Pennsylvania is teeming with wildlife especially when it comes to the white – tailed deer. This is so much so that the government had themselves set up a Game Commission to regulate the hunting of these animals.

West Virginia Public Broadcasting Reliance Said to Be in Talks With Atlas for Shale Gas BusinessWeek The talks between Reliance, which is controlled by billionaire Mukesh Ambani, and Moon Township, Pennsylvania -based Atlas are in preliminary stages, … Penn Virginia Resource Partners, L.P. Announces Gathering and Compression …

Washington Post Chavez: Twitter and websites may soon be blocked in Venezuela ZDNet (blog) Reuters is reporting that Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez…

Yesterday on Don Russell’s Beer Radar , he had the basic information on a second raid by the PLCB and Pennsylvania State Troopers. As promised, a fuller account was published today, with additional reporting by Bob Warner, in the Philadelphia Daily News . Here’s the account, entitled In Another Raid, State Police Hit Beer Distributor, Origlio’s, in Far Northeast . The state continues to confiscate Duvel , Monk’s Café Flemish Sour Red Ale and even Hacker-Pschorr , despite all three brands having been registered and sold for many years. Russian River Brewing’ Supplication was also one of the beers confiscated, but in that case Vinnie Cilurzo admitted he’d simply forgotten the paperwork for the very small number of cases shipped to Pennsylvania. As reported by Russell, Cilurzo stated. “We are a small mom-and-pop brewery and every once in a while something slips through the cracks.” What continues to be troubling is that this is essentially just paperwork errors and miscommunication and it’s being treated like the crime of the century. Did they really need to go in armed, like storm troopers? Were they expecting trouble or that gunfire might be necessary? It’s not like they were raiding a bootlegger’s den and could expect Tommy guns to be carried by everyone inside the distributorship. It seems absurd to think there might be some justification for that level of power display. As another remarked. “‘It’s just a clerical problem, but they’re treating this stuff like contraband,’ said one distributor who asked not to be identified.” See what we’ve created? Here’s a legitimate businessman who’s afraid to be identified while criticizing the PLCB and the state police for fear of retaliation, despite the fact that as a citizen he has every right to do so. When we aren’t comfortable exercising basic rights like that because we believe we’ll be targeted by the people we’re criticizing (who, let’s not forget, are there to serve the people), that, to me, is a very scary development indeed. Now that’s a chilling effect. This is just going from bad to worse. UPDATE: Thanks to James Costa for pointing this out. Today, the Philadelphia Inquirer’s food writer, Rick Nichols, gives us his take on the PLCB raids in Beer Raid Backfires on Liquor Agents . Tagged as: Government , Pennsylvania .

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Blending biomass into the coal stream that feeds electricity-generation plants offers the opportunity to reduce harmful emissions and create a market for renewable fuel, according to a biomass-energy expert in Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences . And Pennsylvania power-plant operators have a big incentive for co-firing coal with biomass they buy from farmers, noted Daniel Ciolkosz , senior extension associate in agricultural and biological engineering. State mandate. “The state’s Alternative Fuels Portfolio Standard is a state mandate that requires, among other things, that 18 percent of Pennsylvania’s electricity be generated from renewable or alternative energy sources by 2021,” he said. “Biomass co-firing is one of the most promising ways to meet that standard.” Pennsylvania farmers and foresters interested in growing biomass such as switchgrass and small-diameter trees as energy crops soon are likely to have eager buyers for their products, Ciolkosz suggested. Tests under way “Several experiments have shown the feasibility of co-firing biomass with coal, including tests at the Shawville power plant in Clearfield County and the Seward power plant in Westmoreland County,” he said. The most common type of facilities for co-firing are large, coal-fired power plants, Ciolkosz said. “However, other coal-burning facilities, such as cement kilns, industrial boilers and coal-fired heating plants, are good candidates for co-firing as well.” One of the reasons biomass is well suited for co-firing with coal is that both biomass and coal are solid fuels, Ciolkosz pointed out. Therefore, equipment designed to burn coal can burn biomass as well. Higher moisture However, several differences between biomass and coal — such as biomass’s typically higher moisture content and its propensity to clog equipment when burned — have scientists scrambling for solutions to allow co-firing. “The chemical composition of coal is different from that of biomass,” he said. “Most notably, biomass has a higher hydrogen and oxygen content, and less carbon than coal. “As a result, biomass tends to generate less energy than coal — about two-thirds as much.” Biomass also tends to be less dense than coal, he added. And pulverized coal is nearly seven times denser than baled straw. “This means that fuel-feed systems will need to handle and deliver much higher volumes of fuel if co-firing is used.” Charcoal conversion Ciolkosz said one of the possible methods for reducing these problems is to convert the biomass to charcoal, which has a consistency similar to that of coal, or to densify biomass fuel into hard pellets or briquettes that may be more compatible with a combustor’s fuel-handling system. Potential market Farmers and foresters should be aware that co-firing may create a massive market for biomass. Currently, Pennsylvania uses approximately 57 million tons of coal per year. If 5 percent of the fuel were replaced with biomass, it would amount to 4.4 million tons of biomass per year. “That would nearly triple the current rate of biomass use for energy,” Ciolkosz said. “Consider a 1,000-megawatt power plant, which is a typical large plant by today’s standards. Co-firing at a 5 percent rate would require approximately 245,000 tons of biomass per year, which would require about 50,000 acres of high-yield production.” Think contracts Ciolkosz suggests that farmers and landowners consider securing long-term supply contracts from power producers, which could reduce the risk associated with growing biomass crops — especially perennial crops such as grasses or short-rotation woody crops, which require several years before they are ready for harvest. “When we consider the buyer’s perspective, the main benefit of co-firing is that it reduces pollution from the power plant,” he said. “Biomass is virtually free of sulfur and mercury, which leads to reductions in emissions that are proportional to the amount of biomass being used.” Carbon neutral Because biomass is also essentially carbon neutral, Ciolkosz expects power plant operators will soon want to burn it for energy. “When you consider the growing levels of concern and regulation surrounding the release of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, even a 5 percent reduction in emissions can make the difference between meeting or missing an emissions target set by the government.” Get the details – Single copies of the Renewable and Alternative Energy Fact Sheet: Co-firing Biomass with Coal , is available free to Pennsylvania residents through county Penn State Cooperative Extension offices, or by contacting the College of Agricultural Sciences Publications Distribution Center at 814-865-6713 or by e-mail at AgPubsDist@psu.edu . – For cost information on out-of-state or bulk orders, contact the Publications Distribution Center. – The publication also is available online at http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/PDFs/ub044.pdf . .

The New York Times has some piquant details, including the fact that no sooner did Colleen Renee LaRose become a Muslim — by simply reciting a line of verse (no tests and no waiting, just like getting married in South Carolina in the pre-war days)– than all of a sudden she had very firm views on Middle Eastern conflicts. All of a sudden, she who probably could not locate Israel on a map, had become a fervent supporter of the Jihad against Israel: The “MySpace profile for a woman who refers to herself as JihadJane displays pictures of bloodshed and violence in the Middle East scrawled with messages like “Palestine We Are With You” and “Sympathize With Gaza.” Become a Muslim, and all of a sudden you have a Very Strong Opinion about things you never knew, and still do not know, a thing about. It was perhaps obvious for JihadJane to start with an ostentatious taking of the side of “Palestine” (i.e., supporting — janishly — the Jihad against Israel) but if asked what she thought of this or that conflict involving Muslims, she would now have an answer too, which would be to always and everywhere take the Muslim side: if asked what she now thought about Kashmir, you can get that she would insist that Kashmir belonged to Pakistan, and for that matter, India belonged to its rightful owners, the Muslims (whom those “colonialist” British had removed from power), that Abu Sayyaf terrorists in the Philippines should be backed to the hilt, that the Buddhists should get out of southern Thailand and leave it to the Muslims, that Khaddafy was right to declare Jihad against Switzeraldn for the minaret ban, that the Christians who were hacked to death in Nigeria had it coming to them, that the black Africans in the Sudan deserved, by the millions, to die because the Sudan belongs to Islam and to the Arabs, and so on and so bloody forth. Here’s the NYT article: Pennsylvania Woman Tied to Plot on Cartoonist By CHARLIE SAVAGE WASHINGTON — A Pennsylvania woman who called herself JihadJane was tied Tuesday to an alleged assassination plot against a Swedish cartoonist who depicted the prophet Muhammad atop the body of a dog. In an indictment unsealed Tuesday, federal prosecutors accused Colleen R. LaRose, an American from the Philadelphia suburbs, of linking up through the Internet with militants overseas and plotting to carry out a murder. Ms. LaRose, 46, was arrested in Philadelphia in October, but her case was kept under seal. Although the indictment does not identify the target, a law enforcement official said her case was linked to the arrests Tuesday of seven Muslims in Ireland in connection with a scheme to kill the cartoonist, Lars Vilks. A group linked to Al Qaeda had put a $100,000 bounty on his head for the cartoon, which the group perceived as an insult to Islam. European news reports said Irish police, who arrested the four men and three women, had coordinated the operation with the United States. A police statement issued Wednesday in Dublin said the Irish arrests followed a joint investigation by police in Ireland, the United States and “a number of European countries,” and that the suspects were being held at four police stations in an area about 100 miles south of Dublin, under a law that allowed for them to be held for up to seven days for questioning. News reports in Ireland said that the seven being held were from Algeria, Croatia, Palestine, Libya and the United States, and were aged between their mid-20’s and late 40’s. The Irish Times reported that American investigators believe that the leader of the group was an Algerian who has been living in Ireland for the past 10 years. A Justice Department spokesman would not confirm whether Ms. LaRose had been involved with the plot. Mark T. Wilson and Rossman D. Thompson, federal public defenders in Philadelphia who are representing Ms. LaRose, declined to comment. Michael L. Levy, the United States attorney for Eastern Pennsylvania, said in a statement the case illustrated how terrorists were looking for American recruits who could blend in. “It shatters any lingering thought that we can spot a terrorist based on appearance,” he said. Ms. LaRose is white, with blond hair and green eyes, according to the law enforcement official, who was not authorized to share details of the case and spoke only on the condition of anonymity. The official said Ms. LaRose was born in Michigan and later lived in Texas and Montgomery County, Pa. The indictment said that in mid-2008, Ms. LaRose, using the aliases JihadJane and Fatima LaRose, began posting on YouTube and other Internet sites messages about her desire to help Muslims. A MySpace profile for a woman who refers to herself as JihadJane displays pictures of bloodshed and violence in the Middle East scrawled with messages like “Palestine We Are With You” and “Sympathize With Gaza.” By early 2009, the court papers said, she was exchanging e-mail messages with unidentified co-conspirators in Southeast Asia and Europe and expressed a desire to become a martyr for an Islamist cause. The indictment refers to e-mail messages in which a conspirator, citing how Ms. LaRose’s appearance and American passport would make it easier for her to operate undetected, allegedly directed her in March 2009 to go to Sweden to help carry out a murder. She agreed to do so, writing, “I will make this my goal till I achieve it or die trying,” the indictment says. She and another unnamed American later posted online solicitations for money for that project, the document said. Ms. LaRose had attracted the government’s attention by then. She was questioned by F.B.I. agents on July 17, 2009, and falsely told them that she had never solicited money online for terrorism, had never used the alias JihadJane and had never made postings on a terrorist Web site, the court papers say. Despite drawing the F.B.I.’s attention, the indictment says Ms. LaRose traveled to Europe in August, joined an online community hosted by the intended Swedish victim in September and performed online searches to track him. She apparently never attempted to carry out the killing. The indictment also says Ms. LaRose recruited other people on the Internet to wage or support jihadist attacks. .

The following is a White House transcript of President Obama’s health care remarks in Glenside, Pennsylvania.   The President traveled to Arcadia University Monday to discuss his plan for health care reform. ********************************* THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Pennsylvania! (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. This is a nice crowd. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. Well, what a wonderful crowd. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I love you! THE PRESIDENT: Love you back. (Applause.) I am — I’m kind of fired up. (Applause.) I’m kind of fired up. (Applause.) So, listen, we — this is just an extraordinary crowd and I — AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you! THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. (Applause.) I want — there’s some people I want to point out who are here who’ve just been doing great work. First of all, give Leslie a great round of applause for her wonderful introduction. (Applause.) Somebody who’s been working tirelessly on your behalf, doing a great job — the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius is in the house. (Applause.) One of the finest governors in the country, Ed Rendell is in the house. (Applause.) Everybody notice how good Ed is looking, by the way? He’s been on that training program, eating egg whites and keeping his cholesterol down. (Laughter.) Your senior senator who has just been doing outstanding work in the Senate, Arlen Specter is in the house. (Applause.) One of my great friends, somebody who supported me when nobody could pronounce my name, Bob Casey is in the house. (Applause.) Your congressman, the person who gave me confidence that I could win even though nobody could pronounce my name — Chaka Fattah is in the house. (Applause.) I figured if they could elect a “Chaka” — (laughter) — then they could elect a “Barack.” (Laughter.) A couple other outstanding members of Congress — first of all, from Pennsylvania, Allyson Schwartz is in the house. (Applause.) Somebody who rendered outstanding service to our nation before he was in Congress, Joe Sestak is in the house. (Applause.) One of the sharpest members of Congress — technically not his state but he’s just from right next door, New Jersey, so he’s practically — (applause.) See, we’ve got some Jersey folks here. (Applause.) Rob Andrews is in the house. (Applause.) And the great mayor of Philadelphia, Mike Nutter. (Applause.) It’s a little hot, I think. (Applause.) And to Arcadia University — (applause) — thank you, thank you guys for hosting us. (Applause.) I was asking about that castle on the way in, by the way. (Applause.) That’s a — I thought the White House was pretty nice, but that castle, that’s — (laughter.) Well, it is great to be back here in the Keystone State. It’s even better to be out of Washington, D.C. (Laughter.) First of all, the people of D.C. are wonderful. They’re nice people, they’re good people; love the city, the monuments, everything. But when you’re in Washington, folks respond to every issue, every decision, every debate, no matter how important it is, with the same question: What does this mean for the next election? (Laughter.) What does it mean for your poll numbers? Is this good for the Democrats or good for the Republicans? Who won the news cycle? That’s just how Washington is. They can’t help it. They’re obsessed with the sport of politics. And so that’s the environment in which elected officials are operating. And you’ve seen all the pundits pontificating and talking over each other on the cable shows, and they’re yelling and shouting. They can’t help themselves. That’s what they do. But out here, and all across America, folks are worried about bigger things. They’re worried about how to make payroll. They’re worried about how to make ends meet. They’re worried about what the future will hold for their families and for our country. They’re not worrying about the next election. We just had an election. (Applause.) They’re worried about the next paycheck, or the next tuition payment that’s due. (Applause.) They’re thinking about retirement. You want people in Washington to spend a little less time worrying about our jobs, a little more time worrying about your jobs. (Applause.) Despite all the challenges we face — two wars, the aftermath of a terrible recession — I want to tell everybody here today I am absolutely confident that America will prevail; that we will shape our destiny as past generations have done. (Applause.) That’s who we are. We don’t give up. We don’t quit. Sometimes we take our lumps, but we just keep on going. That’s who we are. But that only happens when we’re meeting our challenges squarely and honestly. And I have to tell you, that’s why we are fighting so hard to deal with the health care crisis in this country; health care costs that are growing every single day. I want to spend some time talking about this. The price of health care is one of the most punishing costs for families and for businesses and for our government. (Applause.) It’s forcing people to cut back or go without health insurance. It forces small businesses to choose between hiring or health care. It’s plunging the federal government deeper and deeper and deeper into debt. The young people who are here, you’ve heard stories — some of you guys still have health care while you’re in school, some of you may still be on your parents’ plans, but some of the highest uninsurance rates are among young people. And it’s getting harder and harder to find a job that’s going to provide you with health care. And a lot of you right now feel like you’re invincible so you don’t worry about it. (Laughter.) But let me tell you, when you hit 48 — (laughter) — you start realizing, things start breaking down a little bit. (Laughter.) And the insurance companies continue to ration health care based on who’s sick and who’s healthy; on who can pay and who can’t pay. That’s the status quo in America, and it is a status quo that is unsustainable for this country. We can’t have a system that works better for the insurance companies than it does for the American people. (Applause.) We need to give families and businesses more control over their own health insurance. And that’s why we need to pass health care reform — not next year, not five years from now, not 10 years from now, but now. (Applause.) Now, since we took this issue on a year ago, there have been plenty of folks in Washington who’ve said that the politics is just too hard. They’ve warned us we may not win. They’ve argued now is not the time for reform. It’s going to hurt your poll numbers. How is it going to affect Democrats in November? Don’t do it now. My question to them is: When is the right time? (Applause.) If not now, when? If not us, who? Think about it. We’ve been talking about health care for nearly a century. I’m reading a biography of Teddy Roosevelt right now. He was talking about it. Teddy Roosevelt. We have failed to meet this challenge during periods of prosperity and also during periods of decline. Some people say, well, don’t do it right now because the economy is weak. When the economy was strong, we didn’t do it. We’ve talked about it during Democratic administrations and Republican administrations. I got all my Republican colleagues out there saying, well, no, no, no, we want to focus on things like cost. You had 10 years. What happened? What were you doing? (Applause.) Every year, the problem gets worse. Every year, insurance companies deny more people coverage because they’ve got preexisting conditions. Every year, they drop more people’s coverage when they get sick right when they need it most. Every year, they raise premiums higher and higher and higher. Just last month, Anthem Blue Cross in California tried to jack up rates by nearly 40 percent — 40 percent. Anybody’s paycheck gone up 40 percent? AUDIENCE: Nooo — THE PRESIDENT: I mean, why is it that we think this is normal? In my home state of Illinois, rates are going up by as much as 60 percent. You just heard Leslie, who was hit with more than a hundred percent increase — 100 percent. One letter from her insurance company and her premiums doubled. Just like that. And because so many of these markets are so concentrated, it’s not like you can go shopping. You’re stuck. So you’ve got a choice: Either no health insurance, in which case you’re taking a chance if somebody in your family gets sick that you will go bankrupt and lose your home and lose everything you’ve had — or you keep on ponying up money that you can’t afford. See, these insurance companies have made a calculation. Listen to this. The other day, there was a conference call that was organized by Goldman Sachs. You know Goldman Sachs. You’ve been hearing about them, right? (Laughter.) So they organized a conference call in which an insurance broker was telling Wall Street investors how he expected things to be playing out over the next several years, and this broker said that insurance companies know they will lose customers if they keep on raising premiums, but because there’s so little competition in the insurance industry, they’re okay with people being priced out of the insurance market because, first of all, a lot of folks are going to be stuck, and even if some people drop out, they’ll still make more money by raising premiums on customers that they keep. And they will keep on doing this for as long as they can get away with it. This is no secret. They’re telling their investors this: We are in the money; we are going to keep on making big profits even though a lot of folks are going to be put under hardship. So how much higher do premiums have to rise until we do something about it? How many more Americans have to lose their health insurance? How many more businesses have to drop coverage? All those young people out here, after you graduate you’re going to be looking for a job. Think about the environment that’s going to be out there when a whole bunch of potential employers just tell you, you know what, we just can’t afford it. Or, you know what, we’re going to have to take thousands of dollars out of your paycheck because the insurance company just jacked up our rates. How many years — how many more years can the federal budget handle the crushing costs of Medicare and Medicaid? That’s the debt you’re going to have to pay, young people. When is the right time for health insurance reform? AUDIENCE: Now! THE PRESIDENT: Is it a year from now or two years from now or five years from now or 10 years from now? AUDIENCE: No! THE PRESIDENT: I think it’s right now. And that’s why you’re here today. (Applause.) Leslie is a single mom — just like my mom was a single mom — trying to put her daughter through college. She knows that the time for reform is now. Natoma Canfield — self-employed cancer survivor from Ohio — she wrote us a letter. Last year her insurance company charged her over $6,000 in premiums; paid about $900 worth of care. Now they’ve decided to jack up her rates 40 percent next year. So she’s had to drop her insurance, even though it may cost her the house that her parents built. Natoma knows it’s time for reform. Laura Klitzka — this is a friend of mine, somebody I met when I was campaigning in Wisconsin — Green Bay, Wisconsin. She’s a young mother; she’s got two kids. She thought she had beaten her breast cancer but later discovered it had spread to her bones. She and her husband had insurance, but their medical bills still landed them with tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt. And now she spends her time worrying about that debt when all she wants to do is spend time with her children. I just talked to Laura this past weekend, and let me tell you, she knows that the time for reform is right now. So what should I tell these Americans? That Washington is not sure how it will play in November? That we should walk away from this fight, or do something — do something like some on the other side of the aisle have suggested, well, we’ll do it incrementally; we’ll take baby steps; we’ll do — AUDIENCE: No! THE PRESIDENT: So they want me to pretend to do something that doesn’t really help these folks. We have debated health care in Washington for more than a year. Every proposal has been put on the table. Every argument has been made. I know a lot of people view this as a partisan issue, but both parties have found areas where we agree. What we’ve ended up with is a proposal that’s somewhere in the middle — one that incorporates the best from Democrats and Republicans, best ideas. Think about it along the spectrum of how we could approach health care. On one side of the spectrum there were those at the beginning of this process who wanted to scrap our system of private insurance and replace it with a government-run health care system, like they have in some other countries. (Applause.) Look, it works in places like Canada, but I didn’t think it was going to be practical or realistic to do it here. On the other side of the spectrum, there are those who believe that the answer is just to loosen regulations on insurance companies. This is what we heard at the health care summit. They said, well, you know what, if we had fewer regulations on the insurance companies — AUDIENCE: Boo! THE PRESIDENT: — whether it’s consumer protections or basic standards on what kind of insurance they sell, somehow market forces will make things better. Well, we’ve tried that. I’m concerned that would only give insurance companies more leeway to raise premiums and deny care. (Applause.) So the bottom line is I don’t believe we should give government or insurance companies more control over health care in America. I believe it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your own health insurance. (Applause.) And that’s why my proposal builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. But I can tell you, as the father of two young girls, I don’t want a plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor. So we’re going to preserve that. Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system. Listen up. First, it would end the worst practices of insurance companies. Within the first year of signing health care reform, thousands of uninsured Americans with preexisting conditions would suddenly be able to purchase health insurance for the very first time in their lives, or the first time in a long time. (Applause.) This year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions. (Applause.) This year, they will be banned from dropping your coverage when you get sick. (Applause.) And they will no longer be able to arbitrarily and massively hike your premiums — just like they did to Leslie or Natoma or millions of others Americans. Those practices will end. (Applause.) If this reform becomes law, all new insurance plans will be required to offer free preventive care to their customers starting this year — free check-ups so that we can catch preventable illnesses on the front end. (Applause.) Starting this year, there will be no more lifetime or restrictive annual limits on the amount of care that you can receive from your insurance companies. There’s a lot of fine print in there that can end up costing people hundreds of thousands of dollars because they hit a limit. If you’re a young adult, which many of you are, you’ll be able to stay on your parents’ insurance policy until you’re 26 years old. (Applause.) And there will be a new, independent appeals process for anybody who feels they were unfairly denied a claim by their insurance company. So you’ll have recourse if you’re being taken advantage of. (Applause.) So that’s the first thing that would change and it would change fast — insurance companies would finally be held accountable to the American people. That’s number one. Number two, second thing that would change about the current system is this: For the first time in their lives — or oftentimes, in a very long time — uninsured individuals and small business owners will have the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves. (Applause.) If it’s good enough for Congress, it should be good enough for the people paying Congress its salary — that’s you. (Applause.) Now, the idea is very simple here, and it’s one — (audience interruption) — I’m sorry, go ahead. (Applause.) Let me explain how this would work, because it’s an idea that a lot of Republicans have embraced in the past. What my proposal says is that if you aren’t part of a big group, if you don’t work for a big company, you can be part of a pool which gives you bargaining power over insurance companies. It’s very straightforward. Suddenly, just like the federal employees — there are millions of them so they can drive a harder bargain with insurance companies — you, as an individual or a small business owner, could be part of this pool, which would give you more negotiating power with the insurance companies for lower rates and a better deal. (Applause.) Right? Now, if you still can’t afford the insurance that’s offered — even though it’s a better deal than you can get on your own, but you still just can’t get it, then what we’re going to do is give you a tax credit to do so. And these tax credits add up to the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history. (Applause.) Because the wealthiest among us, they can already afford to buy the best insurance there is; the least well off are already covered through Medicaid. It’s the middle class that gets squeezed. That’s who we need to help with these tax credits. (Applause.) That’s what we intend to do. (Applause.) Now, I want to be honest. Let’s be clear. This will cost some money. It’s going to cost about $100 billion per year. Most of this comes from the nearly $2.5 trillion a year that America already spends on health care. It’s just that right now a lot of that money is being wasted or it’s being spent badly. So with this plan, we’re going to make sure that the dollars we spend go to making insurance more affordable and more secure. So I’ll give you an example. We’re going to eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance and pharmaceutical companies. (Applause.) They are getting billions of dollars a year from the government, from taxpayers, when they’re making a big profit. I’d rather see that money going to people who need it. (Applause.) We’ll set a new fee on insurance companies that stand to gain as millions of Americans are able to buy insurance. They’re going to have 30 million new customers; there’s nothing wrong with them paying a little bit of the freight. And we’ll make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of Medicare, just like everybody else does. (Applause.) So the bottom line is this: Our proposal is paid for. All the new money generated in this plan goes back to small business owners and individuals in the middle class who right now are having trouble getting insurance. It would lower prescription drug prices for seniors. (Applause.) It would help train new doctors and nurses to provide care for American families and physicians assistants and therapists. I know there are — got great programs here at Arcadia. (Applause.) I was hearing about the terrific programs you have at Arcadia in the health care field. Well, you know what, we’re going to need more health care professionals of the sorts that are being trained here, and we want to help you get that training. And that’s in this bill. (Applause.) So I’ve mentioned two things now: insurance reform and making sure the people who don’t have health insurance are able to get it. Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions — families, businesses, and the federal government. (Applause.) As I said, you keep on hearing from critics and some of the Republicans on these Sunday shows say, well, we want to do more about cost. We have now incorporated almost every single serious idea from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care — ideas that go after waste and abuse in our system, including in programs like Medicare. But we do this while protecting Medicare benefits, and we extend the financial stability of the program by nearly a decade. Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people’s premiums and brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next decade because we’re spending our health care dollars more wisely. (Applause.) Those aren’t my numbers. Those aren’t my numbers –they are the savings determined by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress for what things cost. So that’s our proposal: insurance reform; making sure that you can have choices in the marketplace for health insurance, and making it affordable for people; and reducing costs. (Applause.) Now, think about it. I think — how many people would like a proposal that holds insurance companies more accountable? (Applause.) How many people would like to give Americans the same insurance choices that members of Congress get? (Applause.) And how many would like a proposal that brings down costs for everyone? (Applause.) That’s our proposal. And it is paid for, and it’s a proposal whose time has come. (Applause.) The United States Congress owes the American people a final, up or down vote on health care. (Applause.) It’s time to make a decision. The time for talk is over. We need to see where people stand. And we need all of you to help us win that vote. So I need you to knock on doors. Talk to your neighbors. Pick up the phone. When you hear an argument by the water cooler and somebody is saying this or that about it, say, no, no, no, no, hold on a second. And we need you to make your voices heard all the way in Washington, D.C. (Applause.) They need to hear your voices because right now the Washington echo chamber is in full throttle. It is as deafening as it’s ever been. And as we come to that final vote, that echo chamber is telling members of Congress, wait, think about the politics — instead of thinking about doing the right thing. That’s what Mitch McConnell said this weekend. His main argument was, well, this is going to be really bad for Democrats politically. Now, first of all, I generally wouldn’t take advice about what’s good for Democrats. (Laughter.) But setting aside that, that’s not the issue here. The issue here is not the politics of it. But that’s what people — that’s what members of Congress are hearing right now on the cable shows and in the — sort of the gossip columns in Washington. It’s telling Congress comprehensive reform has failed before — remember what happened to Clinton — it may just be too politically hard. Yes, it’s hard. It is hard. That’s because health care is complicated. Health care is a hard issue. It’s easily misrepresented. It’s easily misunderstood. So it’s hard for some members of Congress to make this vote. There’s no doubt about that. But you know what else is hard? What Leslie and her family are going through — that’s hard. (Applause.) The possibility that Natoma Canfield might lose her house because she’s about to lose her health insurance — that’s hard. (Applause.) Laura Klitzka in Green Bay having to worry about her cancer and her debt at the same time, trying to explain that to her kids — that’s hard. (Applause.) What’s hard is what millions of families and small businesses are going through because we allow the insurance industry to run wild in this country. (Applause.) So let me remind everybody: Those of us in public office were not sent to Washington to do what’s easy. We weren’t sent there because of the big fancy title. We weren’t sent there to — because of a big fancy office. We weren’t sent there just so everybody can say how wonderful we are. We were sent there to do what was hard. (Applause.) We were sent there to take on the tough issues. We were sent there to solve the big challenges. And that’s why we’re there. (Applause.) And at this moment — at this moment, we are being called upon to fulfill our duty to the citizens of this nation and to future generations. (Applause.) So I’ll be honest with you. I don’t know how passing health care will play politically, but I do know that it’s the right thing to do. (Applause.) It’s right for our families. It’s right for our businesses. It’s right for the United States of America. And if you share that belief, I want you to stand with me and fight with me. (Applause.) And I ask you to help us get us over the finish line these next few weeks. (Applause.) The need is great. The opportunity is here. Let’s seize reform. It’s within our grasp. (Applause.) Thank you very much, everybody. God bless. (Applause.) END 12:00 P.M. EST .

I was recently contacted by an owner of a website that tracks how Senators and Representatives in Washington have voted on the major issues of the day. It is a very interesting and easy to use down-loadable PDF for each state. Here is the link to how Pennsylvania Congressman have voted on the major issues. Click Here. If you are reading this and you are from one of our other states Click Here to find your state.

The nice thing is you can print this out on one page and take it with you to the place you vote and easily share it with your friends, churches and other organizations.  The chart does not get into party affiliation. In all honesty that should not matter to most of us. While I may be a Conservative and often vote Republican I will stand by anyone who is for smaller government, lower taxes, energy independence, fiscal responsibility and tough on terror. I don’t care what party affiliation you have if you believe in these things.

Washington will never learn unless “We the people” decide to make them listen by voting out the wrong headed career politicians and vote in the new blood, pro Constitution small government types.

You can stop reading now if you want. The rest of this is just my venting on recent political issues. If you need to rant simply register and submit your rant via a Post. We will review and approve it if appropriate.

Since Barack Obama has taken office with his Democrat majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate they have wasted time and precious American resources. Not that Bush was much better. However, I believe if a Conservative was in office he or she would have immediately pivoted towards the economy. Just like after the 9/11 attack we should have gone aggressively towards fiscal responsibility.

Just think about this for a minute or maybe you already have. While the country tail spins our Congress and President squandered an entire year on 2 major issues that Americans were overwhelmingly against. They were Cap and Trade, known as Cap and Tax as it would cost all Americans billions if not trillions of dollars and hurt our economic standing in the world. All based on faulty science that says man is causing the earth to warm. If you been paying attention to the news you now know the earth has been cooling for the past 15 years or so and that it is all a natural thing. The next thing our politicians have been wasting time on is Government run Health Care. Even though all the polls prove Americans want to take a slow incremental approach to changing they way health care is delivered, the President, Pelosi and Reid are going to try and ram through a government take over of health care against the wishes of the American people.

I remember the line that rocketed Bill Clinton into office: “It’s the economy stupid!” However catchy that slogan was it did not come to fruition until the Contract with America came about by Conservative leaders in 1994.The Tea Party Movement is similar only it is a grass roots outcry of the people to our government to reform the way it does business now. It is the people saying “It’s the economy stupid” rather than the politicians. It is the people wanting a new Contract with America.

If you did not know it, Congress is the branch of our government that holds the purse strings. They decide how and or if money is spent. A President can Veto bills he doesn’t like but it can be overridden by a two thirds majority vote by the Congress. You may have recently seen how Congress planned to stop Obama and Eric Holder from putting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial in civilian courts. The measure failed by just one vote. However, the point is Congress was going to use “the power of the purse” to stop this as it will likely cost us anywhere from 300 million to 1 billion dollars to try him in civilian court. A military tribunal would cost virtually nothing.

Back to the main point of my rant. It is time to vote these jokers out. The only problem is when it comes election time we often forget how our Senators and Representatives voted on previous issues. Visit http://www.votetrackers.com and grab your states voting history on the major issues today.

The insurance giant that was “too big to fail” was bailed out under the Bush administration with 160 BILLION dollars, lost another 67 some Billion last year and requires another 9 Billion this year. As I watched Cavuto today he ran the clips showing he and Mike Huckabee were against the bailout before and all along the line and have not wavered in their view. He also ran several clips of Republicans insisting they needed to bail AIG out.

I suppose few who read this are business news junkies like me. If you own a business  you almost have to be. I’m not going to ask “where is my bailout” like some have quoted small business owners asking. I’m just going to suck it up and do the best I can. In business that means letting someone go or severing a relationship that is just not beneficial. Other times it means cutting costs and doing without. We really need to sever our relationship with AIG.

I can’t help but wonder in the American Capitalist system how you get “too big to fail.” I though the government was there to ensure monopolies do not exist since this allows them to set and control  prices. I suppose that is how some become too big to fail, government failing to do its job!

Capitalism is based on having winners and losers. We can’t all be winners, no matter what the new Socialist leaning government in Washington tells us. I include some Progressive Republicans in that statement.

The one sure fire way to ruin a child is to continue to bail them out when they get in trouble. The same holds true for business. Sure, there will be tons of pain when they learn their lesson the hard way. Yes, it will impact more than just the loser. As in a family, when one sibling screws up it hurts the entire family and possibly the community. However, that is no reason to continue to bail them out. Out of failure comes the ability to learn from our mistakes. Bailouts prevent this learning experience and serves to continue the bad behavior.

We all have had the brother, sister, friend or employee who continues to seek being bailed out when they screw up. Many of us are guilty of helping people too many times. I believe in Alcoholics Anonymous they call it “enabling.”  I know because I once tried to help an alcoholic friend and he told me I was an enabler. I suppose I was but I’m trying to learn my lesson about bailing people out too often myself.  I say enough is enough. While we work hard to maintain a decent living the leaches of society try to suck the life out of our hard work. It is time to knock off the government bailouts. It is not their money, it is our money.

That’s my thought, I welcome yours.

Sometimes I laugh at Glenn Beck’s antics. Tonight he was in rare form, very animated but very concise in front of the CPAC cameras. If you did not see it (luckily I have DVR) you should take the time to watch the entire thing once it appears on YouTube or FOX News.

It was an extremely hard hitting speech mixed with encouragement and hope. Glenn compared the Republican Party to Tiger Woods. He said they should simply start out admitting their mistakes. If you read Tiger’s apology pretending you were hearing a Republican Politician standing up and saying those words they would be welcome words. Not about an affair but about spending without thinking there would ever be a day of accountability.

Glenn pointed out the hard truth that America was built on “rugged individualism” not hand outs. It is only when you are at the bottom of your string that you can look up and realize you need to change. Glenn knows, he is an alcoholic. He reminded us that the first step is to admit you have a problem. He is right. We all have a problem. It is called big government, out of controls spending and handouts.

A major revolving theme during his speech was on Progressivism. He has been pointing this out on his TV show for a while now. The old Communists in America realized they would never be able to win by a violent over throw of the government. They invented Progressivism which is the slow movement to change the Constitution until it is more like the Communist Manifesto. I suppose it is similar to putting a frog in a pot of cold water and turning up the heat slowly. Before he can realize the water is boiling the frog is dead. The same thing is true with Progressives. They want to “evolve” our country into something completely different which will and already has started to ruin it.

Progressivism is not a Democrat or Republican thing. Beck pointed out that most of the Progressives are in the Democrat Party. However, there are many in the Republican Party. Progressivism is like a cancer. It doesn’t just attack part of the body, it attacks the whole thing.

Glenn also talked about being a small business owner. Wow, can I relate! We are the one’s who create jobs, care about other people and do our best to see that their needs are met. Did you ever get a job from a poor man? That is the question you always here and I know you are tired of hearing it, but it is true. Rich people provide for poorer people out of the goodness of their hearts and the need to provide services, not out of the government coffers.

Beck emphasized this is going to be hard. People are going to have their homes foreclosed, lose jobs and yes some will die. That is the hard truth. In order to fix this problem people are going to die. Not by a direct method as in war but here and their because we’ve over spent on everything. As Beck stated, “Since when is health care a right?”  Yes, under either system, Socialist or Free Enterprise people are going to die from lack of proper health care. You cannot save everyone. Get over it.

For the fortunate ones their houses and jobs is all they will lose. However, in that loss is opportunity for some to start anew. Many will come out of it better than if they never experienced the hardships. What is the old saying? What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger? There seems to be some truth in that if you ask me.I belive it was Janice Joplan that sang, “freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”

What does it all boil down to? We have to swallow the bitter pill. After binging on wasteful government spending for years, giving hand outs instead of hand ups it is time to pay the piper. When the dust has settled and the smoke has cleared we will mourn our losses be it home, job or life of loved ones. We must vow never to make this mistake again. The time to start on the new course is today. Time to get to work America. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get your ass to work because Uncle Sam is broke.