Category: Politics

Zika funding

If you listen to the Democrats on Capital Hill, the story line is that the Republicans are trying to defund Planned Parenthood via the Zika funding bill. However, while this is what they would have you believe, it turns out not to be quite that simple. Here’s how it is stated in a Washington Examiner article:

Democratic lawmakers have refused to back the legislation because it strips more than half a billion dollars from a defunct Obamacare fund as well as more than $200 million from other unspent federal funds. Democrats also oppose the bill because the funding would not be distributed to clinics in Puerto Rico that are affiliated with Planned Parenthood, a women’s health care and abortion provider.

First, I’m OK with repurposing money from defunct funds and unspent federal allocations. If not re-used  for a legitimate expense, such as this Zika issue, these funds might be used for some politician’s pet project. I can only assume that the Democrats had some other need for that money, but it’s not theirs alone to spend. There are reasons why Congress holds the purse strings, and one of them is to prevent unauthorized spending of such “unused” funds.

Second, according to these Forbes and National Review articles there is no language in this bill that defunds Planned Parenthood. Instead it boils down to how Medicaid works in Puerto Rico, which prevents Planned Parenthood – in Puerto Rico only – from being paid via federal block grant funds used for the Zika bill. However, other federally-funded family planning centers in Puerto Rico (such as Preven, which Forbes asserts has a much larger presence in Puerto Rico than does Planned Parenthood), as well as Planned Parenthood operations all 50 states, would be eligible to receive funds.

Third, the funding for Planned Parenthood in Puerto Rico that the Democrats want added to the Zika bill amounts to $250M – almost a quarter of the total $1.1B allocated for the entire bill, and almost as much as is allocated for the National Institute of Health to develop a Zika virus. This amounts to funding far beyond that necessary for Zika protection, and is really an end-run by Democrats to fully-fund Planned Parenthood in Puerto Rico by holding the Zika bill hostage.

Finally, even the left-leaning Politifacts site points out that Democrat claims of Planned Parenthood “defunding” leave out important details:

The legislation would have blocked the flow of money to one organization, Profamilias, the Planned Parenthood chapter in Puerto Rico. … However, the bill also provided funds that would potentially help clinics and hospitals in nearly every municipality on the island.

In summary, the Zika bill proposed by Republicans does not defund Planned Parenthood. Due to the way funding from Social Services Block Grant programs are allocated in Puerto Rico (and only in Puerto Rico), the Planned Parenthood organization there is not eligible to receive Zika-related funds. However, larger family planning health providers exist in Puerto Rico and these organizations are eligible for Zika-related funds. In addition, the $250M in Planned Parenthood funding for Puerto Rico demanded by the Democrats goes far beyond Zika-related efforts, and should be considered through a separate appropriations measure. The Zika bill proposed by the Republicans rightfully concentrates on funding Zika-related work via existing federal channels, not re-writing the federal rules for medicaid in Puerto Rico or funding individual organizations.

Reverse desegregation

The California State University Los Angeles and the University of Connecticut have both established on-campus housing restricted for occupation by African-Americans only. At the CSULA, this is touted as a “safe space for [black students] to congregate” and avoid the “microaggressions” from their white classmates. At the University of Connecticut, the housing is restricted further to African-American males only.

This reverse desegregation (self-segregation?) is troublesome for me. I believe it will foster animosity rather than friendship and further the divide between people of all races. In addition, I believe that it will lead to calls for other “exclusive” living quarters, as evidenced by one University of Connecticut student’s comment: “What about black women and girls – what about us?” Any number of other race-based groups could demand similar accommodations.

Special accommodations based on race serve only to accentuate our differences rather than our similarities and provide fodder for racists. They should be discouraged whenever possible, and alternatives developed to promote inclusivity over segregation.

The answer to excessive government is … more government?

Why not just fix the FDA instead of creating a new government bureaucracy?

Clinton decreed today that “all Americans deserve full access to the medications they need”, and vowed to  “hold drug companies accountable” when they end up with virtual monopolies due to FDA failure to approve generic drugs or alternative drug delivery methods (such as for the epinephrine in the EpiPen).

Clinton has essential made the claim that the EpiPen scandal is the work of greedy capitalists, and so she would step in – with the authority of the federal government – and curb prices by (government) force if necessary.  However, the  truth is that the over-regulation of drug manufacturers by the FDA allows for drugs that have been in use for decades to become single-source monopolies for drug companies, who then price the drug as they see fit. The EpiPen is a wonderful example – epinephrine, the active ingredient in the EpiPen – has been around for over a century. However, the auto-injection method used by EpiPen – while novel and patented – has few FDA approved alternative in the U.S. This allows the EpiPen to be sold containing a few pennies of epinephrine for $300 a shot (pun intended).

Why a non-auto-injection system is not offered as an alternative, I do not know. How difficult would it be to stick someone in the butt with a pre-filled syringe and push the plunger? It’s not like diabetics haven’t been injecting themselves for years. I think this type of prefilled, manual injection system is well within the capabilities of the typical American and would reduce the costs significantly for this life-saving drug application.

The only people who benefit from more government are the politicians. And frankly, it’s the politicians that I want to see out of business – not the drug companies.

In the company of thieves

The New York Times has made the claim that Donald Trump has been, though his casino dealings, in  “… regular contact with people who had ties to organized crime…”

What I think is funny is that the Clintons have been in the company and contact of actual, convicted criminals, some of whom they (Bill) pardoned on his last day in office. People like Marc Rich, one of the most notorious fugitives of the period (and whose ex-wife was a major Clinton/democrat supporter). Or Roger Clinton, the convicted-then-pardoned drug dealer half brother of Bill. Even Chelsea has been part of the mix: In 2010 she married Marc Mezvinsky, whose father – Edward Mezvinsky – was convicted of 31 felony counts in 2001 for defrauding investors. At least Mezvinsky has not (yet) been pardoned by Clinton; I wonder what will happen on her last day in office…

I’m not saying either one of these two is better than the other; I just wish the press would assign their negative attributes equal time. The press coverage to date seems to reinforce the concept of a liberal bias in the press.

Spend, spend, spend… oh, and tax!

The CBO says our debt will continue to grow over the next decade, leading to “serious negative consequences”. Really, you think so?

OK, let me put the U.S. budget crisis in terms you might understand. In the following comparison, “income” is proportional to tax revenue, “credit card debt” is proportional to national debt,

You have an immature sibling who can’t seem to handle their money. They make a cool $100K per year, but have almost  $430K in credit card (unsecured) debt (more than four times their gross income). Worse, they expect their credit card debt to increase by $18K this year alone. By 2026, their income will rise to over $150K/year, but their credit card debt will increase to $700K – and will be increasing at a rate of almost $38K per year. In other words, even if their earnings rise as projected their debt will rise at an even faster rate. You’ve been brought up with strong family bonds, and you know that you and the rest of the family will need to bail your sibling out if they get too far in debt. What kind of talk would you be having with your sibling under these circumstances? Maybe you would discuss the”serious negative consequences” of their actions…?

Now, let’s look at this from another angle: You work for your sibling’s company, where you are paid at a higher rate (and with better benefits) than market because of your familial ties. It also turns out your sibling is on the hook for any shortfall in your retirement account, so you plan on “spiking” your last year income to increase your retirement payout. You could (and should) have been replaced years ago by someone with a better work ethic, higher skills, and a lower cost, but you don’t want to give up your meal ticket. Instead, you unduly influence your sibling directly and through like-minded family members (guilt is, after all, a powerful tool). What kind of talk do you have with your sibling under these conditions? Yeah, I thought so.

Notice that that the government likes to state the national debt as a percent of GDP. Since when is your debt calculated based on the productivity of the company for which you work? Seems like some sneaky accounting trick, doesn’t it (it is)?

Welcome to the Welfare States of America, where your wealth and well being is the responsibility of the state. God save the sucker who actually works for a living (or, more correctly, for your living).

And don’t forget: It’s your own fault. You put them in office, and they’ve done exactly what you told them to do. You want something for free, and they give it to you while billing the minority of voters who didn’t contribute to their campaign coffers. Well, watch out: someday it might be you who gets stuck with the bill.

Are contributions to your own charity tax deductible?

OK – let’s see if I have this right…

According to the Clinton’s 2015 tax return, they gave a cool million to their own charity, the Clinton Family Foundation. Note that the charity watchdog organization Charity Navigator had placed the Clinton foundation on their “watchlist” of problem charities, according to a 2015 NY Post article (although this no longer appears to be the case). I wonder if the Clintons can be employed by their own charitable organization after they retire from politics? That would make their foundation a lot more like a retirement plan than a charity….

Desert Classic Charities was the other recipient of the Clinton’s generosity, receiving (by comparison, a paltry) $42,000. That very same charity is reported to have then in turn given a donation of $700,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

I’m not kidding. You can’t make this stuff up….

Texas voting laws vs. the World

The Texas voter ID law is once again in the news. In July, a sharply divided 5th circuit Court of Appeals ruled that while the law was not intentionally discriminatory, it could have that effect for some voters. Following this ruling, a lower court outlined additional options available for voters who might not have one of the defined acceptable identifications.

But are voter ID laws really such a burden? In the rest of the world, the requirement for presenting voter ID is widely accepted. Why, then, does the U.S. have such a problem with this concept?