Millions of Families Will Pay $2,100 More in Annual Health Insurance Premiums Under Senate Bill; $460 Billion in Medicare Cuts at the Heart of Health Care Legislation

The Growing Movement to Nullify National Health Care

December 11, 2009

Campaign for Liberty - In response to what some opponents see as a Congress that doesn't represent their interests, State Legislators are looking to the nearly forgotten American political tradition of nullification as a way to reject any potential national health care program that may be coming from Washington.

In 2010, residents of Arizona will be voting on a State Constitutional Amendment that would let them effectively opt out of any proposed national health care plan. Legislatures in Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are also considering similar State Constitutional Amendments.

And now, Missouri is joining them. According to a report in The Missourian, "Rep. Cynthia Davis, R-O'Fallon, pre-filed a bill Dec. 1 that, if approved by voters, would effectively put a halt on any national health care legislation. Davis said her intent was to give voters a way to protect themselves."

The bill, HJR48, "proposes a constitutional amendment which would prohibit compelling a person to participate in any health care system." It states:

"To preserve the freedom of citizens of this state to provide for their health care, no law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly or through penalties or fines, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system. A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services. Subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person's options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule"...

Millions of Families Will Pay $2,100 More in Annual Health Insurance Premiums Under Senate Bill

December 1, 2009

CSNews.com – For millions of American families, the cost of health insurance premiums will increase $2,100 a year under the Democratic health care bill now being debated in the U.S. Senate. That’s according to an analysis conducted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JTO).

The CBO-JCT analysis of Sen. Harry Reid’s bill found that people buying their own health insurance policies on government-run exchanges – as they will be required to do if they lack coverage through work -- will see their premiums increase by up to 13 percent in 2016, the year in which the Senate bill takes full effect.

For people purchasing their own insurance on government-run exchanges:

"Average premiums per policy …in 2016 would be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal, compared with roughly $5,500 for single policies and $13,100 for family policies under current law."

Put another way, under Reid’s bill, a family in 2016 would pay $15,200 for an insurance plan, up $2,100 from the $13,100 they currently pay.

Costs would not go up for everyone who buys their own insurance: The CBO analysis says about 57 percent of the individuals purchasing their own insurance “would receive government subsidies that would reduce their costs” below what they’re paying now.

The subsidies, on average, “would cover nearly two-thirds of the total premium,” the analysis said. (The Senate bill would subsidize the purchase of insurance policies for individuals and families with incomes between 133 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level.)

But the other 43 percent who do not qualify for federal subsidies would end up paying higher premiums.

CBO and JCT estimated that roughly 23 million people would purchase their own coverage through government-run exchanges in the year 2016 -- and roughly 5 million of those people would not receive federal subsidies.

Further, the CBO analysis assumes that employers will continue providing health insurance for their workers rather than pay a government fine for failing to provide coverage.

But what if that doesn’t happen? If people who now have insurance through their employers are forced out of their plans -- because their bosses would rather pay a fine than pay for insurance – many more Americans would have to buy their own individual policies – and many of them presumably would not qualify for federal subsidies.

The CBO-JCT analysis says most people who get their insurance through their jobs would not notice much change in their premiums under the Reid bill, although in many cases the premiums would be slightly lower.

But the CBO-JCT analysis also noted that the Senate bill would impose an excise tax on “high-value” employment-based policies...

Senate Democrats Reach Tentative Deal on Public Option in Health Care Bill

December 8, 2009

McClatchy Newspapers — Senate Democratic negotiators said Tuesday that they'd tentatively agreed to a compromise plan that could alter the government-run option in their health care bill, a bid to win key moderates who've threatened to derail the effort.

Though he wouldn't offer details, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said late Tuesday that there was a "broad agreement" how to proceed. Several alternative scenarios are being sent to the Congressional Budget Office for further analysis, and Democratic leaders maintained that all could be defined as some kind of public option.

The Tuesday evening announcement came hours after the Senate dealt with the other major sticking point for the $848 billion, 10 year plan to overhaul the nation's health care system. By a 54-45 vote, senators rejected a bid by anti-abortion lawmakers to put strict limits on federal abortion funding.

That left the government-run plan, pushed hard by Democratic leaders and designed as a competitor to private insurers, as the bill's lone major flashpoint. A group of 10 senators has been meeting privately to try to reach an accord.

Those senators have centered on expanding Medicare so that people near retirement age, from 55 to 64 years old, could qualify for coverage if their employers don't offer coverage. Medicare now covers people over 65 and some with disabilities.

In addition, negotiators have seriously discussed having the federal government oversee and perhaps negotiate details of some plans offered by private companies.

The negotiators have also considered having a government-run plan as a backup if the new system doesn't meet key goals, such as near-universal coverage and better affordability.

At least four Democratic moderates are wary of a government-run plan, saying it could be costly and expand government's reach, but they want to make coverage more affordable and available, so that plan is expected to win their backing.

Liberals think the public plan is a more effective way of achieving those goals, and expanding Medicare would provide some movement in that direction. Not everyone was immediately pleased, however.

"I do not support proposals that would replace the public option in the bill with a purely private approach," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis. "We need to have some competition for the insurance industry to keep rates down and save taxpayer dollars."

Democrats control 60 of the Senate's 100 seats, exactly enough to cut off debate. If enough Democrats, and perhaps a moderate Republican or two, vote for the new proposal, it could pass by Christmas.

Top senators would then enter into compromise talks with House of Representatives leaders — and the House measure, passed last month, does include a government-run public option.

Because of Tuesday's vote, the Senate health care bill continues to allow health plans the option of covering elective abortions. If abortions are covered, the plan must establish separate accounts with private funds to pay for them...

Senate Passes Coverage for Mammograms, Cuts in Medicare

December 3, 2009

AP - Passing a critical test, Senate Democrats closed ranks yesterday behind $460 billion in politically risky Medicare cuts at the heart of health care legislation, thwarting a Republican attempt to doom President Obama’s sweeping overhaul.

The Senate also approved safeguards for coverage of mammograms, requiring insurance plans to cover the breast cancer screening test in an array of preventive measures and essentially wiping out a federal advisory committee recommendation to defer routine mammograms until women reach the age of 50.

The day’s votes were the first since the Senate’s health care debate began Monday and demonstrated the ability of Democrats to move ahead in the face of implacable Republican opposition.

The bid by the bill’s critics to reverse cuts to the popular Medicare program failed on a vote of 58 to 42, drawing the support of two Democratic defectors and all Republicans. Approval would have stripped out money needed to help pay for expanding coverage to 31 million uninsured Americans and would have sent the entire 2,074-page bill back to the Senate Finance Committee for a redo.

AARP, the seniors’ lobby, supported the 10-year package of cuts in projected spending, giving Democrats political cover for their decision to pare back subsidies to private Medicare plans as well as payments to hospitals, hospices, home health agencies, and other providers.

Democrats said seniors will not lose any guaranteed benefits and contended that the cuts - amounting to a 2 percent slowdown in spending - will help keep Medicare solvent by making it more efficient.

“My colleagues on the Republican side have resorted to the politics of fear to preserve a broken health care system,’’ said Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa.

Republicans disagreed vigorously, saying that seniors in the popular Medicare Advantage private plans will lose benefits and predicting that lawmakers will ultimately back away from the cuts, once seniors start feeling the brunt.

“Medicare is already in trouble. The program needs to be fixed, not raided to create another new government program,’’ said the party’s leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

The Medicare vote went to the heart of seniors’ concerns that cuts to the program would undermine the quality of their care.

Furious with opposition from AARP, Senator John McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee who pushed the bid to halt the cuts, delivered a message to seniors:

“Take your AARP card, cut it in half and send it back. They’ve betrayed you.’’

In the end, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and James Webb of Virginia were the only Democrats to support McCain’s proposal.

The first votes yesterday were held under a special agreement requiring 60 votes to prevail. The margin was also close on the women’s health amendment, which passed 61 to 39.

Though Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate, two voted against the provision by Democrat Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Republican Olympia J. Snowe of Maine: Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Nelson.

The measure was saved by three Republicans voting in favor - Snowe, David Vitter of Louisiana, and Susan M. Collins of Maine.

We Know How this Healthcare Debate Ends, Or Do We?

November 29, 2009

The New Republic - On Monday, the full Senate will begin deliberations over the [healthcare] bill Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced before Thanksgiving. And the ultimate resolution of that process wouldn't seem to be in much doubt.

Republicans will do whatever they can to drag out the debate. But unless political circumstances change drastically, they probably will not succeed in stopping reform altogether. Instead, the Senate will vote for a bill, work out its differences with the House, and send legislation to the White House for the president to sign.

But the debate that unfolds over the next few weeks will be full of drama--and not just the manufactured kind. While it's hard to imagine opponents of reform stopping a bill from passing., it's not at all hard to imagine the opponents of reform drastically altering the bill before it goes forward.

You can look forward to amendments on abortion, immigration, employer responsibility, tort reform--amendments that plenty of more conservative Democrats will find hard to resist, out of either principle or political necessity, even as they further alienate the left...

To be clear, you can count me among those convinced that health care legislation will never be repealed--that, once enacted, it will become a permanent part of the American social welfare state, something people cherish. But along the way to implementation, a lot of bad things can happen to the new system, not to mention the lawmakers who championed it.

The key for the next few weeks, as the Senate debate moves forward, is figuring out how to minimize that danger. And that alone should create plenty of drama.

The Medical Road to Serdom

November 30, 2009

Campaign for Liberty - ...Another illusory truth is the concept that a government takeover of medicine will lower costs for health insurance. Every estimate of health insurance premiums so far by the Congressional Budget Office shows that they premiums will go up substantially. The current $12,400 average price of a family insurance policy will rise to about $20,000. How can the politicians state that costs will go down? Because the "worst always rise to the top" and this explains Congressional approval ratings routinely in the low teens.

In addition, costs will also go up $500 billion for American taxpayers as they are asked to "subsidize" the cost of overpriced health insurance for others (wealth transfer) -- entitlement recipients that the democrats hope to turn into their permanent voting block.

The very medical devices and drugs patients need will be taxed billions, making them less available and stifling new treatments.

True costs are hidden as taxes start immediately and government spending ("benefits") starts in 2014! The $235 billion doctor pay fix for Medicare is not counted! So much for President Obama's promise not to not raise the deficit one dime -- debt that our children will owe to China.

Finally, each citizen is taxed if they don't buy health insurance -- breaking the promise not to tax anyone if they make less than $250,000. They will also face five years of jail time for failure to buy "government approved" insurance, and pay the tax according to the 11/5 letter by the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

The end of lifetime limits on medical benefits from health insurance that is promised on page 16 of the Senate bill 3590 is broken two sentences later when it is revealed that certain covered benefits can have a limit. The concept that there will be no denial of pre-existing conditions is broken when it is realized that this is only true for plans that cover "essential benefits" defined by the unelected Secretary of Health and Human Services (page 103). If you want a plan that covers something not approved by this one person -- then you can be denied.

Complaints occur that "rationing" exists in the current system (when people don't have insurance) and speculation that somehow the government can ration more fairly. Yet the rationing to come under the supervision of the "expert panels" has never been seen on such a scale in our country before. It does exist in Europe where a cold calculation of a "quality adjusted life year" is used to deny life saving breast cancer drugs because they exceed the government approved cost of $45,000...

EU Superstate and the Lisbon Treaty

Copenhagen Summit: Europeon Union Turns on U.S. and China Over Weak Emission Targets

December 8, 2009

The Times - The European Union has rejected the new carbon emission targets tabled by the United States and China and said they were much too weak to prevent catastrophic climate change.

The dispute between the three main players at the Copenhagen climate change summit overshadowed the first day of negotiations and dashed hopes that a deal on emissions was imminent.

The EU called on President Obama to announce a more ambitious target next week, when he arrives in Copenhagen for the last day of the conference on December 18.

But the US insisted that the provisional offer made 10 days ago by Mr Obama was “remarkable” and in line with what scientists had recommended.

Mr Obama has proposed to cut its emissions by 4 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020, although he has said this is subject to getting the approval of Congress. The EU has made a legally binding commitment to cut its emissions by 20 per cent over the same period. It has also said it would increase the cut to 30 per cent if other countries committed to “comparable action”.

Washington tonight attempted to demonstrate that it was serious about fighting climate change by formally announcing that green house gases were a danger to American health and paving the way for new regulations to control them. This would technically allow Mr Obama to override Congress and impose carbon cuts but, in practice, he is more likely to use the prospect of regulations as a bargaining chip to persuade enough senators to pass a Bill enforcing the 4 per cent target...

Main Points of the EU's 'Lisbon Treaty'

December 1, 2009

Associated Press - The main points of the Lisbon Treaty which aims to simplify how the 27-nation bloc will be run in the decades ahead. The treaty came into force Tuesday.

POWER AND INFLUENCE IN AN EXPANDED CLUB:

The EU will have a president for 2 1/2-year terms and a more powerful foreign policy chief who answers to the EU governments, but is a member of the European Commission, the EU executive. That person will head an extensive network of diplomats and civil servants.

DECISION-MAKING:

The treaty will mean the EU can take decisions by majority rather than unanimous voting in 50 new areas including judicial and police cooperation and economic policy. Britain and Ireland get opt-outs in judicial and police areas. Unanimity is still required in foreign and defense policy, social security, taxation and culture.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS:

A 50-article charter contains a list of well-established rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, but also includes the right to shelter, education, collective labor bargaining and fair working conditions. Worried by the impact on business and their legal systems, Britain, the Czech Republic and Poland obtained opt-outs.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT:

The European Parliament gets more power - especially in justice and interior affairs - to influence or reject EU legislation and trade pacts with other parts of the world. The EU assembly will have its membership capped at 751 members.

Climategate and the Copenhagen Climate Treaty

Obama Surprises with Copenhagen Summit Decision

December 4, 2009

Reuters - U.S. President Barack Obama's decision to attend U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen at the end of the process rather than the beginning shows the White House is serious about pursuing a deal to curb global warming. The White House attributed a late change of plan on Friday to growing momentum toward a new global accord.

Obama was originally scheduled to attend the December 7-18 summit in Denmark on Wednesday before traveling to nearby Oslo to collect his Nobel Peace Prize.

Some European officials and environmentalists had expressed surprise at the initial decision, pointing out most of the hard bargaining on cutting greenhouse gas emissions would likely take place at the climax of the summit, when dozens of other world leaders are also due to attend.

"After months of diplomatic activity, there is progress being made toward a meaningful Copenhagen accord in which all countries pledge to take action against the global threat of climate change," the White House said in a statement.

Danish officials say more than 100 world leaders have confirmed they will attend the conference, which Denmark hopes will help lay the foundation for a successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on curbing global warming gases.

"Based on his conversations with other leaders and the progress that has already been made to give momentum to negotiations, the president believes that continued U.S. leadership can be most productive through his participation at the end of the Copenhagen conference on December 18th rather than on December 9th," the White House said.

GROWING CONSENSUS

The Obama administration has been encouraged by recent announcements by China and India, two other major carbon emitters, to set targets to rein in emissions and the growing consensus on raising cash to help poor nations cope with global warming, seen as a stumbling block to a new U.N. deal.

Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen swiftly welcomed Obama's decision, saying his attendance was "an expression of the growing political momentum toward sealing an ambitious climate deal in Copenhagen." In London, a spokesman for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Obama's presence would give "huge impetus" to the negotiations.

The United States will pledge in Copenhagen to cut its greenhouse gas emissions roughly 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

It was the last major industrialized country to offer a target for cutting greenhouse gases in a U.N.-led drive to slow rising world temperatures that could bring more heatwaves, expanding deserts, floods and rising sea levels.

Experts expect the Copenhagen gathering to reach a political agreement that includes targets for cuts in greenhouse gases by rich nations by 2020. Agreement on a successor to Kyoto will be put off until 2010.

The White House said Obama had discussed the status of negotiations with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain's Brown.

There appeared to be a growing consensus that a "core element" of the Copenhagen accord should be to seek pledges totaling $10 billion a year by 2012 to help developing countries cope with climate change, the White House said.

"The United States will pay its fair share of that amount and other countries will make substantial commitments as well," it said.

Environmentalists welcomed Obama's move and some called for him to shift his administration's target for cutting emissions at the same time.

"After a global outcry, President Obama has listened to the people and other world leaders; he has come to his senses and accepted the importance of this potentially historic meeting," Martin Kaiser, Greenpeace International's political climate coordinator, said in a statement.

"Now that he has moved the date, he needs to move his targets and his financial contribution to be in line with what climate science demands," he said.

Denmark Beefs Up Security for Climate Summit

December 3, 2009

Tri-City Herald - In Denmark's biggest security operation since World War II, police are mobilizing thousands of officers and - for the first time - a water cannon for next week's U.N. climate summit.

AP Photo - At an abandoned beer warehouse in Copenhagen's Valby district, law enforcement officials have constructed an elaborate holding facility with three dozen steel cages to accommodate over 350 potential troublemakers during a United Nations climate conference that gets under way here on December 7.

Copenhagen police demonstrated the German-made 22-ton vehicle to media Thursday, showcasing it mainly as a beefed-up fire truck that could spray water on burning cars or trash bins if protests get out of hand.

But police spokesman Michael Engell said it was possible to add tear gas to the 1.5 million-gallon (6,000-liter) water tank, implying that the cannon could also be aimed at rioting protesters. Police said they have never before used such a vehicle.

At least 100 world leaders, including President Barack Obama, will converge on the normally tranquil city in the next two weeks to try to forge a new pact against global warming.

Roughly 15,000 delegates have signed up for the conference - and many more protesters are expected to march through the streets of the capital.

Most demonstrations are expected to be peaceful manifestations urging world leaders to craft an ambitious climate agreement, but police say they are ready if things get rowdy.

"We do not want to be at war with anyone," Copenhagen police operations chief Per Larsen said. "But we will act accordingly if something unacceptable happens. This is not a threat but consumer information."

Lene Vennits, one of the organizers of a planned demonstration on Dec. 12, criticized the police for deploying a water cannon.

"It sends a signal that the climate summit is about violence," she told The Associated Press. "We plan to walk with candles on Dec. 12, and it doesn't mean the city is on fire."

Still, anarchist and anti-capitalist groups have suggested they will seek confrontations with police. It's unclear how many of them will show up in Copenhagen.

The Bella Center conference facility on the outskirts of the capital has been turned into a fortress, sealed off by massive concrete blocks and 6-foot-high (2-meter-high) metal fences.

More than half of the country's 11,000-strong police force will be on the streets of Copenhagen. Police in neighboring countries are lending bomb-sniffing dogs, vans and helicopters.

Denmark also has reactivated border checks that are normally left unattended to allow free movement of people inside the European Union's passport-free zone.

Authorities have not raised the terror alert level, saying any risk of attacks is connected not to the conference, but to Denmark's military presence in Afghanistan and lingering resentment over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad first published in a Danish newspaper in 2005.

Besides world leaders, dozens of VIPs are expected in Copenhagen, including Britain's Prince Charles, former U.S. President Bill Clinton, ex-U.S. Vice President Al Gore, and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The Collapse of the U.S. Economy

New $100 Billion Safety Net for Unemployed in Works

December 1, 2009

AP - As unemployment spikes, the cost of compassion is going up too.

By as much as $100 billion.

That's the potential price of a push by Democrats in Congress to continue providing extra help to the jobless beyond the core 26-week unemployment insurance package provided under permanent law.

The jaw-dropping numbers combine the approximately $85 billion cost of continuing emergency benefits through 2010 for the long-term unemployed -- jobless more than six months -- plus an estimated $15 billion to continue subsidies to help pay health insurance premiums.

Even before the last new round of extended benefits in November, the cost of unemployment compensation was estimated by the White House to exceed $140 billion for fiscal 2010, which began in October. Just two years ago -- when the unemployment rate was 4.8 percent in contrast to the current 10.2 percent -- the cost of unemployment benefits was only $43 billion.

Extending unemployment benefits again is an obvious solution to Democrats preaching compassion for the long-term jobless, as well as to economists who say cutting off the flow of money could harm the economy.

"This is the most effective way to get money into the economy. It's given to people who are simply out of money," said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., a key supporter. "They're spending it. They're not socking it away in a mattress somewhere."

Several temporary benefit extensions dating from mid-2008 are set to expire Dec. 31. In January alone, an estimated 1 million people will lose benefits as their extended coverage runs out. By March, 3 million people will have lost benefits averaging about $315 a week.

Also expiring is a program subsidizing 65 percent of insurance premiums for unemployed people who sign up for a continuation of health benefits formerly provided by their employer under the so-called COBRA program. The nine months of COBRA subsidies and the additional weeks of unemployment benefits were both core pieces of February's economic stimulus plan.

The COBRA health insurance subsidies expire Dec. 1 for those who signed onto the program when it first started last winter, though people who get fired before Jan. 1 are eligible for the full nine-month subsidy. People on unemployment would be able to finish out their present "tier" of benefits but would be ineligible for any of the recently passed additional coverage.

The benefits extension is under discussion among top Democratic leaders. While there's no agreement on a specific plan, there's a lot of sentiment behind a full-year extension, congressional aides say. The staggering cost, however, could preclude passing it.

With the budget deficit spiraling out of control, deficit hawks are certain to balk at the measure's price tag. And the White House, which is signaling that it is going to focus next year on trying to rein in the deficit, is not endorsing a full-year extension of benefits. Budget office spokesman Tom Gavin would only say the administration supports some extension beyond Dec. 31.

"We're past the point where anything can be deficit financed without some plan to pay for it," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "It has to come with offsets."

Many economists say increasing or extending unemployment payments is among the most efficient ways to jump-start the economy. It's easy to do and the people getting the benefits typically spend the money quickly. With the economy in a fragile recovery, cutting off benefits could be harmful.

"It would significantly raise the risk of falling back into recession next year," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com.

Not all economists agree, however, especially if the benefits are financed by adding to the nation's $12 trillion debt. There's also evidence that unemployment insurance actually raises the jobless rate slightly because some people don't look for work as diligently as they do when they're on it.

"The longer you extend unemployment benefits, the longer you extend average job searches," said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. "It makes it more comfortable for people to be unemployed."

While most Republicans supported a recent bill adding 14 to 20 weeks of extra benefits for those who had exhausted payments lasting as long as a year and a half, many are likely to resist the upcoming measure.

"Calling more government spending and more debt a 'jobs package' is laughable, and the Democrats' frantic push for more of the same is yet another acknowledgment that their trillion-dollar stimulus isn't working," said Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

The startling price tag of extending the benefits is due to two factors: the sharp spike in the jobless numbers and several layers of additional weeks of benefits that have been approved by Congress since June 2008.

The core benefit is 26 weeks, with up to 20 additional weeks in states with high unemployment. States collectively are already projected to run a $57 billion deficit in the core program in 2010. The federal government is already obligated to lend them the money to cover that gap.

Additional tiers of benefits were added in 2008. February's stimulus measure not only renewed those benefits but added $25 a week to every unemployment check.

Primary Collapse of the U.S. Economy Will Occur in 2010

December 2, 2009

Neithercorp Press - For the past couple years we have been covering every nuance of the economic collapse and in almost every instance we have come to the conclusion that 2010 would be the year that the U.S. would see an incredible downturn, possibly resulting in the inflationary disintegration of the Dollar, and a major stock market revolt which would destroy any remaining illusion Americans still have that a recovery is in progress:

http://neithercorp.us/npress/?p=74
http://neithercorp.us/npress/?p=167

We are now on the edge of winter 2009, and recent events across the globe indicate more and more that our predictions for 2010 were correct. Let’s examine some of those events and their implications now…

Bad Signs On The Homefront

The situation in American employment, credit, currency, and real estate has only become worse since the federal stimulus plan was instituted. “Official” unemployment has soared to 10.2% while REAL unemployment according to the U-6 measurement is around 18%.

Real Estate continues to be incredibly weak, and mortgage payment delinquencies and bankruptcy have grown unabated.

Over 125 banks across the country have been closed in 2009. You can see the FDIC’s closed bank list here.

The FDIC has announced that it has officially run out of funds, and is now in the red for $8.2 billion (that they admit to, the real amount could be much more). The FDIC is now pulling funds directly from the Treasury to cover future bank losses. This puts even more of a strain on the already crumbling dollar.

American’s buying habits are perhaps the biggest indicator that something is very wrong. Polls indicate the 93% of U.S. consumers will most likely spend much less this Christmas season then they did the last, and many of them will not be using credit cards:

The U.S. economy has been fueled by easy credit for decades. The fact that Americans have dumped credit in favor of cash means they will be spending FAR less this holiday season than any MSM economist wants to admit to. I believe the seasonal retail numbers for 2009 will be startling to many who are not aware of the true condition of the economy, and who have blindly believed the Federal Reserve’s announcements that the recession is “over.”

We have predicted for at least the past two years that the primary collapse of the U.S. economy would occur in 2010. We stand by that prediction. Our hopes remain that this prediction will be proven incorrect, and that all will be well, however we have no illusions according to the current data that this will be so. Neither Corporation encourages all of our readers to examine the conditions and information for themselves, and we request that all those who find our conclusions to be correct should make preparations to protect your savings and the well being of your families.

A climactic economic event is on the horizon, and the train is already in motion. We may not be able stop the event from taking shape, but together we can determine its outcome. All those who value truth, liberty, and an honorable society, should be ready not only to save themselves, but to save each other, and to save their country. The time for readiness grows short.

Family Health Insurance to Rise Sharply without COBRA Subsidy

November 30, 2009

McClatchy Newspapers — A new study estimates that the end of a hefty government subsidy could force millions of laid-off workers to pay more than 80 percent of their monthly unemployment checks to keep their job-based family health insurance coverage intact.

An estimated 7 million jobless workers and their dependents are thought to have received the temporary subsidy, which pays 65 percent of their health insurance premiums under a law known as COBRA, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.

However, the nine-month subsidy expired Monday for those who first began receiving it in March through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Estimates vary, but COBRA subsidies pay an average of $722 per month toward the average national cost of family coverage, which runs about $1,111 per month, according to Families USA, a liberal consumer health advocacy group.

Without the subsidy, however, COBRA family coverage would eat up a whopping 83.4 percent of the $1,333 average monthly national unemployment insurance benefit, according to a Families USA report issued Tuesday.

In nine states, the full COBRA family premium exceeds the average monthly state unemployment benefit, the study found. The situation is worst in Mississippi, where the average unsubsidized COBRA premium of $1,027 for family coverage is 22.4 percent more than the average monthly unemployment benefit of $839, which is the lowest in the nation. The other states in which the average COBRA family premiums top the average monthly unemployment benefit are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Tennessee.

Congressional Democrats are pushing to include some type of COBRA subsidy extension in a major jobs bill that's being crafted. Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, have introduced stand-alone legislation to extend the subsidies in the House of Representatives and the Senate, but it's unclear how soon any new funding can be secured.

In the meantime, many jobless Americans may be left with the difficult choice of paying higher rates at a time of dire financial struggle, going without coverage, or looking for cheaper coverage through government programs or the private market.

"For millions of laid-off workers and their families, the federal COBRA subsidies have been a health-coverage lifeline. It is essential, therefore, that new jobs legislation extends those subsidies," said Ron Pollack, the executive director of Families USA.

In general, COBRA allows certain workers who lose their jobs — unless they were fired for gross misconduct — to continue their health insurance with their former employers for up to 18 months. Before the subsidy was offered, only about 9 percent of people who were eligible took advantage because it was so expensive.

A study by Hewitt Associates found that the number of those who took advantage of the cheaper COBRA insurance has doubled since the subsidy became available in March.

In Milford, Ohio, Tim Wolffrum's monthly COBRA premium for individual coverage will go from $146 to $417 per month when his subsidy expires Dec. 31. That's in line with the Families USA estimate that COBRA premiums average $396 for individuals, while the average subsidized premium is $139.

Wolffrum, 58, said he'd like to see the subsidy extended, but that strong Republican opposition to the health care overhaul and government spending in general makes it unlikely. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the current subsidy would cost nearly $25 billion and cover about 7 million people this year...

U.S. Bankruptcies Rise 33 Percent in Q3, Most Since 2005

November 25, 2009

Reuters - U.S. bankruptcy filings rose 33 percent in the third quarter to the highest number since 2005, government data show, as rising unemployment and tight credit made it more difficult for consumers and businesses to stay current on their debts.

"With unemployment surpassing 10 percent and credit to businesses remaining tight, consumers and businesses are increasingly turning to the financial relief of bankruptcy," said Samuel Gerdano, executive director of the nonpartisan American Bankruptcy Institute, in a statement.

There were 388,485 filings in the July-to-September period, up from 292,291 a year earlier and up 2 percent from the second quarter's 381,073, according to data released Wednesday by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Consumer filings rose 33 percent to 373,308 from 280,787 a year earlier, while business filings increased 32 percent to 15,177 from 11,504...

Among the larger businesses to file this year have been automakers General Motors Corp and Chrysler LLC, mall owner General Growth Properties Inc (GGWPQ.PK), telecommunications company Nortel Networks Corp (NRTLQ.PK), and after the end of the third quarter, finance company CIT Group Inc (CITGQ.PK) on Nov. 1.

Filings in the third quarter were the most in a three-month period since the record 667,431 in the fourth quarter of 2005. Most of those came in the first two weeks of that quarter, prior to a U.S. Bankruptcy Code overhaul that was backed by credit card companies and designed to curb perceived abuses. Some politicians have called for a rollback of some of the changes, which they say have added to consumer hardships.

In the third quarter, about 71 percent of bankruptcy filings came under Chapter 7 of the code, 28 percent under Chapter 13, and most of the rest under Chapter 11. Chapter 7 is often used by consumers seeking a fresh start on their financial lives. Chapter 13 lets people discharge some debts. Businesses often use Chapters 7 and 11. Farmers use another part of the code, Chapter 12...

Global Warming Skepticism on Rise in U.S.; One in Two Accept Man-Made Climate Change

One in Two Accept Man-Made Climate Change

Nearly one in two voters believes there is no proof that mankind is causing global warming, according to a new opinion poll.

December 5, 2009

Telegraph - The ICM survey for The Sunday Telegraph will dismay proponents of "man-made" climate change – including leading scientists and the majority of world governments – as they gather in Copenhagen for the landmark climate summit.

Asked if they backed the main conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that humans are largely responsible for modern day rises in temperatures, 52 per cent of voters agreed.

However, 39 per cent said climate change had not yet been proven to be man made, while seven per cent simply denied the phenomenon was happening at all. Furthermore, fewer than one in four voters (23 per cent) believed that climate change was "the most serious problem faced by man" – a view endorsed by governments across the world.

A clear majority (58 per cent) said it was merely "one of a number of serious problems" while 17 per cent believed it has been exaggerated and is "not a very serious problem."

The survey follows the recent raising of tensions between proponents of man-made climate change, which is the prevailing scientific view, and those who take a more sceptical stance. The IPCC has said it will launch an investigation after the online publication of emails and other material stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the so-called "climategate" affair. Climate change sceptics claim the material shows that the evidence used to support man-made global warming has been manipulated.

The Sunday Telegraph has learned that Professor Phil Jones, who headed the CRU and who has stood aside after the leak of the emails, has received more than £13 million in funding for his research.

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chairman of the IPCC, said it was possible Russian hackers had been paid as part of a global conspiracy to cast doubt on the science of global warming. "I do not think this is a coincidence," he added.

Gordon Brown, who will attend the two-week, 192-nation Copenhagen summit, denounced "the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics" who challenged the prevailing view.

David Cameron has also put tackling climate change high on the Conservative agenda – although his party is home to some prominent sceptics. David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, has hit out at "the fixation of the green movement with setting ever tougher targets."

The ICM poll showed Tory voters were less likely to agree with the prevailing scientific view on man-made global warming (47 per cent) than either Labour supporters (58 per cent) or Liberal Democrats (57 per cent).

Lord Stern, the British government's leading adviser, has warned that 10 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions must be taken out of the atmosphere by 2020. So far agreement is in place for only half of that amount – but chances of a landmark deal at Copenhagen, where President Barack Obama will also attend, appear slim.

Despite the drive to do a deal to cut emissions at Copenhagen its is estimated that there will be around 1,200 limousines on the city's road this week – of which just five will be either electric cars or hybrids. Copenhagen's main airport, furthermore, says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets.

Climate Change Protesters Take to London Streets

December 5, 2009

Tri-City Herald - Thousands of people calling for a deal on climate change at next week's United Nations conference in Copenhagen marched through central London on Saturday, encircling the Houses of Parliament in a human wave of blue-clad demonstrators.

London's Metropolitan Police said about 20,000 people joined the Stop Climate Chaos march, which began at Grosvenor Square and wound its way to the Parliament building on the River Thames. Organizers put the turnout at 40,000.

"We wanted to make a positive statement," said retired teacher Pip Cartwright, 72, from Witney southern England. "It's for the future. It's not my generation that's going to have the problem to solve."

The coalition - which includes groups such as Oxfam, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the WWF - called the protest "The Wave," and organizers asked marchers to dress in blue. The march ended with a mass "wave" around Parliament. Thousands more people attended climate protests in Glasgow and Belfast, as well as in European cities including Brussels, Paris and Dublin.

"The U.K. government must fight for a comprehensive, fair and binding deal at Copenhagen - that is our demand today and we expect it to be fulfilled," Oxfam GB chief executive Barbara Stocking said in a statement. "They must return home with a strong, effective climate deal both for our own sakes in the U.K. and for the millions of poor people already suffering from the effects of climate change around the world."

Also on Saturday, Britain's Met Office said it would publish some of the data it uses to analyze climate change, after thousands of pieces of correspondence between some of the world's leading climate scientists were stolen from the University of East Anglia and leaked to the Internet. Skeptics of man-made global warming say the mails prove that scientists have been conspiring to hide evidence about climate change.

On Friday, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, said the issue raised by the e-mails was serious and would be looked at in detail.

Most climate scientists say their content has no bearing on the principles of climate change itself, but the leak - just before the Copenhagen summit - has been politically explosive.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Saturday that "the scientific evidence is strong" and it was essential for a deal on cutting greenhouse gas emissions in Copenhagen.

He said those opposing action were "anti-change, anti-science, anti-reform, almost flat-Earth" groups...

Global Warming Skepticism on Rise in U.S.

December 3, 2009

Reuters - Sharon Byers is unconvinced that human activities such as the burning of coal and other fossil fuels are behind climate change.

"There have been times in the past when there was global warming in the absence of man. It is all part of a natural cycle. I think it is a little vain to think man could destroy this great planet," said Byers, a former nurse who lives in Lee's Summit, Missouri.

In the U.S. heartland, global warming talk is often seen as hot air and opinion polls show skepticism on the rise, fueling conservative opposition to a climate change bill that is a priority for President Barack Obama and making some Democrats vulnerable in the November 2010 congressional elections.

At U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen that begin next week, America will pledge to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, which most scientists say are the main agents of climate change, by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

In global scientific circles, that is seen as vital as America accounts for around a fifth of global emissions. But for some conservative U.S. activists it all seems sinister.

"We're not interested in one-world government, which seems to be the direction of this summit," said Dale Robertson, the founder of the Tea Party organization which has held rallies across the country to protest Obama's agenda.

A constant theme on conservative and Christian talk-radio stations, which reach tens of millions of Americans, is the notion that the global warming scare is a "hoax" aimed at crippling the U.S. economy and way of life.

This all strikes a chord in these tough economic times and opinion polls show Americans cooling to the issue.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll in November found that 72 percent of Americans surveyed believed global warming was happening, down from 80 percent last year.

But even among Americans who accept that temperatures are climbing there is reluctance to pin the blame on humans.

A Pew poll in October found 57 percent of Americans felt there was evidence that the earth was warming, down from 71 percent in April 2008. But only 36 percent attributed this to human activities, compared with 47 percent last year.

TOUGH SELL, ELECTORAL RISKS

This makes the task of selling legislation to the U.S. public to cap emissions more difficult.

Getting legislation to this effect next year in the U.S. Senate is high on Obama's agenda. The House of Representatives has narrowly passed its own version and Republicans see opportunities here in next year's congressional contests when the Democrats will be fighting to maintain their majorities.

In the House of Representatives, Republican strategists have said that Harry Teague of New Mexico and Betsy Markey of Colorado are among the many Democrats seen vulnerable on this issue in 2010.

In the 100-seat Senate, some Democrats who are up for reelection next year will be in a bind on the issue, much as some are now with the healthcare debate.

"If the Senate does vote on climate change at some point next year, certainly Sens. Barbara Boxer (California), Michael Bennet in Colorado, Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas, Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Harry Reid in Nevada could all be vulnerable, depending, of course, on how they vote," said Jennifer Duffy of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Senator Joseph Lieberman, an independent, said on Thursday negotiators in the Senate are nowhere close to writing details of a compromise climate change bill and that at least two key Senate committees, Finance and Agriculture, have not yet worked on their portions of a bill. Until then, a compromise bill will not be drafted, he said.

Analysts say growing public skepticism on the issue is explained in part by the recession and job losses.

"Up until a couple of years ago when people felt relatively wealthy and secure, they were willing to consider climate change as a problem we should address. But now that they feel more poor and vulnerable they are skeptical," said Cal Jillson, a professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

There are other uniquely American cultural traits that drive views on the issue, such as an enduring love affair with big vehicles which has been dented though hardly crushed by last year's record-high gas prices.

One in four U.S. adults is also an evangelical Christian and, while secular Europeans may find this odd, many really do believe that biblical prophecy foretells the planet's end.

"If you are an evangelical Christian in the American vein then you believe it is our responsibility to look after the planet but it will be ultimately destroyed no matter what we do," said Bart Barber, a Southern Baptist Convention preacher in the small north Texas town of Farmersville.

Climate Bills and a Green Economy

Private Equity Firm Closes $1 Billion Green Fund

December 3, 2009

Reuters - Private equity firm Hudson Clean Energy Partners said on Thursday that it has closed its first fund, having raised more than $1 billion to invest primarily in the emerging green technology sector.

The fund's major investors include pension funds, both public and private, and financial institutions, the group told Reuters.

Investment areas that interest Hudson Clean Energy Partners are wind, solar, biomass, energy efficiency and energy storage.

The fund would look at grid-scale energy storage as well as automotive applications, said John Cavalier, managing partner.

The group, which is a late-stage expansion growth capital fund, invests about $50 million to $150 million on average in one transaction. It typically does not invest in early-stage technology.

The fund is looking to invest in about 10 to 12 green companies over the next couple of years.

Founded in 2007, Hudson Clean Energy Partners is led by Cavalier, a former vice chairman of Credit Suisse's investment banking department, and Neil Auerbach, who was previously with Goldman Sachs.

Cavalier said raising the funds was not easy, given the tough economy. "It was very challenging," he said.

Hudson's current portfolio includes Element Power, a global utility-scale wind and solar power generator; Recurrent Energy, a distributed solar power company; CaliSolar Inc, a solar photovoltaic wafer and cell manufacturer; SoloPower Inc, which makes solar photovoltaic thin-film cells, and Wind to Power Systems, a Madrid-based manufacturer of power electronics that enable connection of renewables to the grid.

Australia’s Parliament Defeats Global Warming Bill

December 1, 2009

Associated Press – Australia’s Parliament defeated legislation to set up a greenhouse gas emissions trading system on Wednesday, throwing a central plank of the government’s plans to combat global warming into disarray.

The Senate, where Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s government does not hold a majority, rejected his administration’s proposal for Australia to become one of the first countries to install a so-called cap-and-trade system to slash the amount of heat-trapping pollution that industries pump into the air.

The 41-33 vote followed a tumultuous debate in which the conservative main opposition party at first agreed to support a version of the government’s bill, then dramatically dumped its leader and switched sides after bitter divisions erupted within the party...

Radical Leftists Protest Chicago Climate Exchange

December 1, 2009

Illinois Review - For those conservatives whose key issue is Cap and Trade and carbon trading, there is a radical group of leftists that agree with you. They too are opposed to the concept of trading carbon emissions, only they're fully supportive of keeping the cap on carbon emissions.

Monday, a demonstration against carbon trading was held in the middle of a key intersection in downtown Chicago where 12 were arrested. The enemy is corporations and Chicago's Climate Exchange, the nation's first. From their website http://www.actforclimatejustice.org/, we read and learn:

The main target of today’s action is the Chicago Climate Exchange, the first and largest carbon market in North America. Several other “climate criminals” were visited during a march, including JP Morgan Chase, one of the leading funders of mountain top removal coal mining; Midwest Generation, the owner of Chicago’s two coal-fired power plants; and the Board of Trade, which trades in palm oil, one of the leading drivers of rainforest destruction.

The event kicked off at 11 a.m. at Federal Plaza (Adams and Dearborn Street), and is part of a national day of action called for by the Mobilization for Climate Justice in the lead-up to the UN climate summit in Copenhagen and on the 10-year anniversary of the successful shutdown of the WTO in Seattle in 1999.

“From Chicago to Copenhagen, powerful companies are cashing in on the climate crisis, taking advantage of public concern over climate change in order to make a buck. Carbon trading institutions like the Chicago Climate Exchange are privatizing the air we breathe and handing over rights to the atmosphere to the biggest polluters,” stated Angie Viands, of Rainforest Action Network (RAN) Chicago.

“Carbon Trading is a fraudulent market that intensifies social injustice, does not reduce emissions in a meaningful way, and acts as a dangerous distraction from the real climate solutions we urgently need.” Event organizers seek to highlight the connections between the global drivers of climate change and local struggles for environmental justice and climate stability.

Obama’s Involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange
Obama, Maurice Strong, Al Gore Key Players Cashing in on Chicago Climate Exchange

Coal Concerns Lead U.S. Climate Bill Challenges

December 1, 2009

Reuters - For anyone trying to understand why the United States is having such a hard time joining an international effort to combat global warming, a short drive west from Washington to one of the smaller states in the country might explain a lot. Even though it has a population of only 1.8 million people in a country of 308 million, West Virginia [represented by Senator Jay Rockefeller - see note below] is not to be ignored as Congress struggles over ways to reduce carbon emissions blamed for international climate change problems. Coal is buried in nearly every nook of its 24,231 square miles (62,758 square km), and any legislation to reduce the role of dirty energy sources such as coal could hit the state hard.

...Throughout the Midwest and South of the United States, coal and coal-fired power plants are central to local energy production and to jobs.

Paul Sracic, chairman of the political science department at Youngstown State University in Ohio, a coal state that also has suffered significant manufacturing job losses in recent decades, said:

"While legislation aimed at combating global -- emphasize global -- warming might garner support in theory, it quickly loses its popularity if it is thought to cost local -- emphasize local -- jobs."

Obama will arrive in Copenhagen on December 9 at the beginning of a two-week international global warming negotiating summit lacking Congress' backing for specific climate change actions the United States could pledge...

But the White House Monday said Obama hopes he can help bring participants to the brink of a deal.

His attendance "certainly raises the stakes of the summit," said Frank O'Donnell, president of the U.S.-based Clean Air Watch. "It looked as if it would be pretty flat but Obama's presence puts it front and center, page one, around the world."

A strong performance also could jump-start legislation in the Senate, he added.

Even so, Obama will have to hit just the right chord in Copenhagen, offering enough to encourage other countries to negotiate a strong deal without promising a too-ambitious domestic plan that the U.S. Congress would refuse to ratify...

Why does the EU have the political will that could be lacking in the United States? Coal, which is not as ubiquitous in western Europe as it is in much of the United States could be one reason. But there are others.

The U.S. Senate operates in ways that make it difficult for any major initiatives to move quickly. Instead of simple majority rule, at least 60 votes out of 100 are needed for important legislation to pass. And every senator's vote, whether he or she is from the gigantic state of California or the tiny state of Rhode Island, is equally weighted.

Other factors also may have contributed to the United States dragging its feet on climate change: The issue has gotten serious attention from the White House only in the past year with Obama's election; Washington has been fixated on reforming the U.S. healthcare system all year, putting climate change on a slower track; lately there have not been monster storms, like the 2005 Hurricane Katrina, that environmentalists could point to for faster action on climate change.

And with a U.S. economy badly in the doldrums, American lawmakers are not itching to cast votes on a bill that will raise energy prices, even if only marginally...

The Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress will try to cast the climate debate in economic terms, arguing that a move toward renewable energy will create jobs. It's an argument many refuse to buy so far.

Carol Browner, Obama's climate adviser, acknowledged the fight ahead.

"It will not be easy," Browner said in a November 20 speech to an environmental group, adding, "There are a lot of people to educate in the towns and cities in this country."

Note: West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller
In his excellent study of the Rockefellers, Gary Allen explains that the "Rockefeller game plan is to use population, energy, food, and financial controls as a method of people control which will lead, steadily and deliberately, into the Great Merger," a one-world government and global fascism."

"Jay Rockefeller is part of the Eastern Establishment who was exported to West Virginia so that the power could be expanded. I know that "Jay" is not representative of the state or the people of the state; he is just a parasitic, opportunistic and incompetent member of a Eugenics-minded family... The Rockefeller family has always looked down upon others and didn’t see them as human. In doing so, the family has shown they are not human, they have no morality and they are the bad seed -- I wonder how much Rockefeller knew about torture as he is a member of the Armed Services and intelligence committees -- a further proof of the disregard of humanity and the direction of the Rockefeller family. No Rockefeller should ever hold public office." - Comment by RickPA, July 22, 2009

RFID, GPS Technology and Electronic Surveillance

Villagers Force Council to Remove Intrusive 'Big Brother' Camera

November 30, 2009

Telegraph - A scheme to introduce cameras has divided the Berkshire village with some residents complaining that the scale of local crime did not justify measures “more appropriate to inner city hotspots.”

Some objectors said the surveillance of the whole community was “unacceptable” and the “overpowering” camera poles would change the character of the village. One resident expressed the fear that the cameras could look into bedrooms.

West Berkshire council approved £200,000 to install cameras in three villages. Two other smaller poles supporting CCTV cameras in Pangbourne are to remain, despite opposition, a spokesman said.

Yesterday, council contractors took down the largest of the three cameras in Pangbourne after a firm of estate agents raised a petition calling for its removal.

The pole replaced a street light, half its size, three months ago and now the light has been put back.

One of the village objectors who signed the petition referred to George Orwell’s novel, 1984, and said:

“Welcome to 1984, remove them all!” Other residents wrote “Big Brother” and “Why?”

Campaigners also put up posters, with tongue-in-cheek messages including:

“If I get lost… Please, please return me to my Big Brother”...

West Berkshire Council said that the camera was put up as part of a wider CCTV programme, which included two other villages, and was designed to improve safety and security for residents and businesses. A spokesman said the large camera in Pangbourne had been chosen for coverage of the car park opposite.

“However, following a request from a local estate agent we have removed it. It will be re-located but not in the village.”

The spokesman confirmed that the two other cameras in Pangbourne would remain.

“We took on board all opinions in the village and the overall wish seemed to be that two should remain, but the third outside the estate agent was superfluous. It will be re-used somewhere else.”

He said the cost of putting the camera up and taking it down was about £1,000. The camera would be used elsewhere, he added.

Pay-Per-Mile Auto Insurance Could Be the New HMO

November 5, 2009

Debra Legg - Why would someone who barely drives not jump at the chance to buy "pay per mile" auto insurance, which the Brookings Institute [editor's note: ruling-elite propaganda machine] estimates will cut most people's yearly insurance costs $270 per car?

Well, for one, I remember the last time an insurance company swore I'd see dramatic savings under a revolutionary new plan. I hope someone came out ahead under health maintenance organizations - I suspect most of us did not.

For another, I'm already under a pretty simple low-milage plan: $680 a year - that's actually sane for California - and all I have to do is take my car in once a year for the agent to verify that I've driven less than 9,000 miles in the past 12 months.

I wouldn't complain if they gave me a bigger break for 4,500 miles, because with my habits and my husband's pending deployment, we'd save a bundle.

I suspect that's not the way it's going to play out in California, where state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner has released new regulations paving the way for pay-as-you go auto insurance. Poizner, another one of California's great gubernatorial candidates, says such plans will encourage people to drive less and reward environmentally conscious driving habits, plus more accurately tie insurance costs to risks. Weren't HMOs supposed to do something like that, too?

I might be convinced to set aside my skepticism and give it a try with a company like MileMeter, which The Sacramento Bee said is interested in California. The Texas company lets you buy as little as 1,000 miles of insurance at a time, and it requires only that you send in three photographs of your odometer over six months as verification.

Ay, but not every company is as trusting.

Prudential, which offers pay-per-mile in 16 states, isn't happy with the odometer verification. That company installs devices that track your miles in real time, plus your speed and the time of day you were driving. They promise they won't release your data - honest, they won't. Unless someone makes them.

That type of reporting, though, is actually mild compared to that of firms that believe GPS is best, because it lets you save even more if you drive less-congested routes or during off-peak hours. I'm sure they won't release you data either. Unless someone makes them.

But back to MileMeter. I picked a Dallas address at random and used otherwise correct data on my car, age and gender. I also replicated my current coverage levels. The quote came back at $487 for 4,000 miles for six months - $276 more and 1,000 miles fewer miles allowed over a year. I do get a discount for carrying a renter's policy with my current company, but that only amounts to about $50 a year. I'd still be $226 in the hole.

If the little old lady who only drives her car two miles round trip to preschool Monday through Friday can't save under pay-per-mile, I'm wondering who can. Thanks for the money-saving "help," Commissioner Poizner. I'm not voting for you for governor, either.

I just hope my current company doesn't feel compelled to "adjust" its rates to reflect the pay-per-mile competition.

Nation’s First By-the-Mile Auto Insurance Provider Celebrates First Anniversary with National Attention

November 19, 2009

MileMeter Press Release - The nation’s first by-the-mile auto insurance provider, MileMeter, is marking its anniversary this fall with several customer events in Waco and Dallas, Texas, while planning its expansion strategy in response to growing interest and demand from other states.

Founder and CEO Chris Gay was featured on Fox Business News on Nov. 10, 2009, as anchor Brian Sullivan interviewed him as a leading expert in pay-as-you-drive (PAYD) insurance. The on-air segment allowed MileMeter to share the revolutionary money-saving and customer-focused concept and gave background on how the PAYD system works.

“The less you drive, the less you pay,” Gay explained as he answered many questions about how consumers can personally benefit with cost savings by enrolling with MileMeter. Gay also noted that MileMeter encourages and rewards the socially responsible behavior of driving less, leading to “…improvements in air quality, water quality and public safety benefits due to less congestion and fewer accidents.”

Among the blogs that have supported MileMeter – to name a few – are TreeHugger, Greenopolis and Mother Nature Network.

Currently, MileMeter policies are available only to Texas residents, but the idea that driving less could mean paying less is spreading to other states.

California recently changed its regulations to allow “pay-drive” and per-mile insurance. A related article in the Sacramento Bee cited MileMeter’s plan as a prime example of the kind of auto insurance that should be available to California drivers to persuade them to drive less in order to reduce the state’s air pollution and traffic congestion...

Kentucky Drivers Can Pay By the Mile with New Tracking Device

InsuranceQuotesUs.com - The MyRate tracking device from Progressive Casualty Insurance Company is now available to Kentucky drivers. The MyRate program is available in seven states, and has been popular among many customers. MyRate is just one of the many forms of PAYD or pay as you drive auto insurance programs cropping op across the country.

If you have a car you rarely use, or a very short commute to work, MyRate or another type of pay as you drive program could save 10 or 15 percent on your auto insurance premiums. The device installed on your car tracks driving behavior such as how often you slam your brakes in addition to car mileage. For teenagers who often engage in risky driving behavior, the potential savings is debatable. However it could be a useful way to track your teen's driving habits.

The particular device used by Progressive can be installed on cars made from 1996 on and requires a monthly fee of five dollars to operate. The majority of auto insurance policyholders still see substantial savings on auto insurance premiums even with this small fee. Some auto insurance companies use OnStar to track miles for their pay as you go auto insurance program. For many, a pay by the mile auto insurance program is perfectly suited to their needs.

Is a New Food Policy on Obama’s List?

Is a New Food Policy on Obama’s List?

December 23, 2008

New York Times - Although Mr. Obama has proposed changes in the nation’s farm and rural policies and emphasizes the connection between diet and health, there is nothing to indicate he has a special interest in a radical makeover of the way food is grown and sold. Still, the dream endures. To advocates who have watched scattered calls for changes in food policy gather political and popular momentum, Mr. Obama looks like their kind of president.

Not only does he seem to possess a more-sophisticated palate than some of his recent predecessors, but he will also take office in an age when organic food is mainstream, cooking competitions are among the top-rated TV shows and books calling for an overhaul in the American food system are best sellers.

“People are so interested in a massive change in food and agriculture that they are dining out on hope now. That is like the main ingredient,” said Eddie Gehman Kohan, a blogger from Los Angeles who started Obamafoodorama.com to document just about any conceivable link between Mr. Obama and food, whether it is a debate on agriculture policy or an image of Mr. Obama rendered in tiny cupcakes. “He is the first president who might actually have eaten organic food, or at least eats out at great restaurants,” Ms. Gehman Kohan said.

Still, no one is sure just how serious Mr. Obama really is about the politics of food. So like mystery buffs studying the book jacket of “The Da Vinci Code,” interested eaters dissect every aspect of his life as it relates to the plate.

Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements

Wikipedia - The Codex Alimentarius (Latin for "food code" or "food book") is a collection of internationally recognized standards, codes of practice, guidelines and other recommendations relating to foods, food production and food safety. These texts are developed and maintained by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a body that was established in 1963 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The Commission's main aims are stated as being to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the international food trade. The Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference point for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.

The 28th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission was subsequently held July 4 - July 9, 2005. Among the many issues discussed were the "Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements," which were adopted during the meeting as a voluntary reference standard. This text has been the subject of considerable controversy, in part because many member countries may choose to regulate dietary supplements as therapeutic goods or pharmaceuticals or by some other category. The text does not seek to ban supplements, but to subject them to labeling and packaging requirements and to ensure that safety and efficacy are considered when determining the ingredient source.

The Guidelines have attracted concern from both consumers and industry due to a perception that there may be restrictions on vitamins and minerals as dietary supplements. The health freedom movement has pointed to greater concerns related to restrictions on dietary supplement ingredients in Europe via the European Union's Food Supplements Directive (which utilizes approved lists of ingredients and ingredient forms) and potentially restrictive dosage limits to be based on a Codex model via the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) Nutrient Risk Assessment Project.

Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul meanwhile has said that the Central American Free Trade Agreement "increases the possibility that Codex regulations will be imposed on the American public."

The Organic Consumers Association claims to help sort the facts from the fiction.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Arming Goldman Sachs With Pistols Against Public

December 1, 2009

Bloomberg - “I just wrote my first reference for a gun permit,” said a friend, who told me of swearing to the good character of a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker who applied to the local police for a permit to buy a pistol.

The banker had told this friend of mine that senior Goldman people have loaded up on firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank.

I called Goldman Sachs spokesman Lucas van Praag to ask whether it’s true that Goldman partners feel they need handguns to protect themselves from the angry proletariat. He didn’t call me back. The New York Police Department has told me that “as a preliminary matter” it believes some of the bankers I inquired about do have pistol permits. The NYPD also said it will be a while before it can name names...

Talk that Goldman bankers might have armed themselves in self-defense would sound ludicrous, were it not so apt a metaphor for the way that the most successful people on Wall Street have become a target for public rage...

Henry Paulson, U.S. Treasury secretary during the bailout and a former Goldman Sachs CEO, let it slip during testimony to Congress last summer when he explained why it was so critical to bail out Goldman Sachs, and -- oh yes -- the other banks. People “were unhappy with the big discrepancies in wealth, but they at least believed in the system and in some form of market-driven capitalism. But if we had a complete meltdown, it could lead to people questioning the basis of the system.”

There you have it. The bailout was meant to keep the curtain drawn on the way the rich make money, not from the free market, but from the lack of one. Goldman Sachs blew its cover when the firm’s revenue from trading reached a record $27 billion in the first nine months of this year, and a public that was writhing in financial agony caught on that the profits earned on taxpayer capital were going to pay employee bonuses.

This slip-up let the other bailed-out banks happily hand off public blame to Goldman, which is unpopular among its peers because it always seems to win at everyone’s expense...

Copenhagen Climate Treaty & Climategate

UK Climate Scientist to Temporarily Step Down

December 1, 2009

Tri-City Herald - The chief of a prestigious British research center caught in a storm of controversy over claims that he and others suppressed data about climate change has stepped down pending an investigation, the University of East Anglia said Tuesday.

The university said in a statement that Phil Jones, whose e-mails were among the thousands of pieces of correspondence leaked to the Internet late last month, would relinquish his position as director of Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent review.

The university's Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research Trevor Davies said the investigation would cover data security, whether the university responded properly to Freedom of Information requests, "and any other relevant issues." The statement said the specific terms of the review will be announced later in the week.

Jones has been accused by skeptics of man-made climate change of manipulating data to support his research. In particular, many have pointed to a leaked e-mail in which Jones writes that he had used a "trick" to "hide the decline" in a chart detailing recent global temperatures. Jones has denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been misunderstood, explaining that he'd used the word trick "as in a clever thing to do."

Davies said there was nothing in the stolen material to suggest the peer-reviewed publications by the unit "are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation."

But the correspondence from Jones and others - which appears to include discussions of how to keep critical work out of peer-reviewed journals and efforts to shield scientists' data and methodology from outside scrutiny - have been seized upon by those who are fighting efforts to impose caps on emissions of carbon dioxide as evidence of a scientific conspiracy...

No Science Is Possible: CRU Has Destroyed the Original Data

November 28, 2009

TigerHawk - The Times of London is reporting in its Sunday edition that the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has destroyed the original data used to construct the historical climate record that purports to show a temperature increase. That is, the hope that independent scientists could assess the "adjustments" made to the raw data is now dashed, for the raw data no longer exists.

This fact has actually been known for months, but the mainstream media ignored it -- no doubt intentionally -- until the email scandal broke last week.

Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation... In a statement on its website, the CRU said:

“We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records.

“The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

So, basically we are being asked to restructure the entire economy of the planet on the say-so of a few "scientists" whose work cannot be verified or even reconstructed. Is there any intellectually honest person who thinks that is a good idea?

In a few days this has gone from being a kerfuffle over a few snotty emails and some academic source code to a full-blown political and policy catastrophe. Any government that supports greenhouse gas regulation based on the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which relied heavily on the CRU data, would be derelict in its own obligation to do due diligence.

Climate "skeptics" have been saying this for some time and dismissed as cranks for it. Months ago conservative bloggers were writing that these data had been destroyed (based on an admission on the CRU's own web site), but the mainstream media sat on the story as if it were irrelevant. Now, with the excuse of the CRU hack, even the Times of London is writing about it breathlessly.

Better late than never, but it still leaves this scary question: What if these wholly discredited "scientists" who threw away their raw data and are asking us to change the world on their say-so are actually right?

Climate Bills and a Green Economy

European Climate Exchange Chief Patrick Birley Defends the Carbon Trading System

November 29, 2009

Telegraph - "Why should it be different as a commodity to the way people trade oil or gas?"

As the man in charge of the world's biggest exchange for companies, banks and hedge funds to trade permits to emit carbon dioxide, Birley is fed up with the environmentalists' charge that dirty capitalists should not profit from the global effort to tackle climate change.

Ahead of the Copenhagen summit next week, campaigners such as Friends of the Earth have argued that the entire system is so flawed it may need to be demolished in favour of a straightforward tax on polluters.

Firstly, they insist, the European system has failed in its fundamental aim to reduce emissions, meaning its only effect is to redistribute wealth among companies and traders. Secondly, the market is a magnet for derivatives that few people understand, brewing up a second sub-prime bubble. Lastly, the opportunities for fraud are vast, given the intangible nature of the product. .

These well-worn concerns are resurfacing as the whole concept of carbon trading stands at a crossroads. This totally invented $126bn (£76bn) market has the potential to flare into a $2 trillion green giant over the next decade, if US President Obama manages to push his carbon trading bill through the Senate early next year.

The Commodities and Futures Trading Commission even believes that within five years, carbon could surpass crude oil as the world's most traded commodity. Mr Birley is the first to admit that the European system "hasn't actually reduced emissions" so far. But having run exchanges throughout his career, he has faith in the ability of the market to deliver in its own good time.

"The goal of the system is reducing emissions: why should it matter how we get there?" he asks.

With weariness, he debunks the idea that policymakers can control who makes money from reducing emissions. The point of a market mechanism is that the market decides.

"Carbon-related products are probably the most profitable part of trading for any of the investment banks right now, because the margins are so good," Mr Birley admits. "Because it's such a specialist area, a little bit of knowledge goes a very long way."

Part of what makes the profits potentially so high are the price swings. Currently carbon is 20pc more volatile than oil, meaning utilities need the banks to help shoulder some of the risk associated with trading and provide liquidity...

The carbon trading system is expected to add £40 to household energy bills when the carbon price reaches €35 per tonne – but the cost to businesses could be even more crippling...

Architects of the US cap-and-trade system argue that there is time to iron out practical problems, but the concern remains that after almost half a decade of carbon trading in Europe, incentives still are not reaching those with a genuine commitment to reducing emissions.

While banks and hedge funds have created new businesses from their carbon trading desks, coal producers and heavy industry have banked billions in windfall profits. Meanwhile, utility companies complain that it is still cheaper to build a gas-fired power station than a wind farm or nuclear plant...

Forest Carbon Scheme Hopes for Green Light in Copenhagen

December 1, 2009

Reuters - While nations bicker over the size of emissions cuts and climate funds, saving forests has turned out to be among the least contentious issues in U.N. climate talks and has achieved the most progress.

The reason, analysts and the world body say, is that curbing deforestation is an easy win for the climate and most countries support a U.N. scheme that aims to reward developing nations for protecting their remaining forests.

That bodes well for major U.N. climate talks that start next Monday in Copenhagen, where the scheme, called reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD), is likely to make further progress, though a number of issues need to be resolved.

Investors such as banks and some rich nations are pushing for REDD to be a success, potentially ushering in a carbon trading scheme from 2013 that could be worth billions of dollars a year.

"If anything is going to be delivered at Copenhagen it's going to be REDD," said Paul Winn, forest and climate campaigner for Greenpeace Australia.

"That is because we are looking at a huge global emissions source. There is also the recognition that it is a relatively cheap, easy form of emissions reductions," he told Reuters...

Financing for REDD was not a problem, he said.

"Developed countries are at the door with the funding and the capacity-building and support and they just want to make sure certain things are met," he said.

Bigger problems were trying to finalize which institutions would manage the cash, how to ensure developing nations had a say in how to use the money, and the extent of the market's role in providing some or eventually all of the funds...

Australia Carbon Laws in Doubt, Election Possible

December 1, 2009

Reuters - The Australian government's plans to cut carbon emissions were headed for defeat in a hostile Senate after the elevation of a new opposition leader opposed to carbon trade laws, setting a trigger for an early 2010 election.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who met President Barack Obama on Monday in Washington, wants to take a lead role at next week's Copenhagen climate change summit by enacting a "cap-and-trade" scheme requiring polluters to buy permits for their emissions.

However, new Liberal opposition leader Tony Abbott said after his party-room election on Tuesday conservative senators, many of them climate change skeptics, would reject Rudd's emissions trading laws if they were not deferred until early 2010.

Abbott said he believed in climate change but told reporters he was opposed to the government's emissions trading scheme (ETS) model, the biggest economic policy change in modern Australian history, and was not afraid to fight an election on the issue.

Assistant Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said the government would still push for its carbon trade laws to be passed this week, and said he hoped some opposition lawmakers would side with the government and defy Abbott.

"The extremists have gained control of the Liberal Party. They are opposed to taking action on climate change, they dispute the science," Combet told reporters.

Rudd has struggled to have his climate change bill passed in the upper house Senate before parliament adjourns until February.

He wants emissions trading to start in Australia in July 2011, covering 75 percent of emissions in the developed world's bigger per capita emitter. The planned carbon trade scheme would be the biggest outside Europe.

The United States is watching Australia's debate closely. A political agreement on carbon trading in Australia would help garner support for action from other countries.

If the Senate ends up rejecting the carbon scheme for a second time, Rudd will have a trigger to call an early 2010 election on climate change, most likely for March or April. Polls suggest his government would win an increased majority. If Rudd wins a so-called double dissolution election of both houses of parliament, he could then push his climate policy through a special joint sitting of the lower and upper houses...

"Mad Monk" Australia Opposition Head to Fight CO2 Laws

November 30, 2009

Reuters - Australia's new conservative opposition leader, Tony Abbott, is nicknamed the "Mad Monk" and once flirted with the priesthood, but his crusade against the government's emissions trade plan has been anything but madcap.

A pugnacious and socially conservative Catholic who has fought everything from attempts to make Australia a republic to embryonic stem cell research and same-sex marriages, Abbott was elected opposition leader on Tuesday in a surprise win.

His election over former investment banker and party moderate Malcolm Turnbull means the conservatives have reversed support for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's emissions scheme and have likely ensured its defeat in an obstructive upper house later this week.

"This is a A$120 billion ($110 billion) tax on the Australian public. We can't just waive that through the parliament. It would be grossly irresponsible of us," Abbott told journalists after his victory on Tuesday.

Elections are due in late 2010.

However, Abbott has now changed his position on the carbon trade scheme three times in recent months. He says he is not a climate skeptic and believes humans have contributed to global warming...