raysmusicexchange.com Blogs Posts

Finding Affordable Auto Insurance for Senior Citizens

admin — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 07:02:05 +0000

Many senior citizens have been loyal to their auto insurance companies for years, often decades. Having the same honorable insurance agent and company is comforting. But the auto insurance industry has become more competitive, actively vying for the senior citizen market. It makes sense for senior citizens to gather information to compare their current rates, especially at the time of auto insurance renewal.

Getting quotes for auto insurance is an easy process. With just a few clicks on the computer or toll-free telephone calls, anyone can gather a list that compares auto insurance by services and rates. For senior citizens, who often are on fixed incomes, this can be a very cost-effective exercise, possibly saving them hundreds of dollars during an insured period.

Finding Comparable Rates

Buying auto insurance is like any other important, long-term lift. The key is to take time to research and shop for the best deal with reliable auto insurance companies.

The following is a sample of insurance companies and insurance brokers offering auto insurance quotes on the Internet. Many have specific marketing programs targeting senior citizens.

AARP: www.aarp.thehartford.com.
AARP is an advocacy organization for seniors that promotes the interests of people over 50 years old. They offer auto insurance to members through The Hartford.

Allstate: www.allstate.com.
Allstate is a well known insurance company. Quotes can be gathered at the above website or local agents can be found in the telephone book and are available to assist in preparing a free quote.

Farmers Insurance Group: http://www.farmersinsurance.com.
Online or in person, a Farmers insurance agent can review auto insurance coverage, befriend identify potential gaps, and include any qualifying Farmers Auto insurance discounts.

Progressive Insurance: www.progressive.com.
Progressive will provide a quote for their company along with comparables of other auto insurance companies for easy comparisons.

Geico Insurance: www.geico.com.
This company can be accessed online or at one of their many offices. It is easy to get a quote; they offer flexible payment options and competitive rates.

Costco: www.costco.com.
Costco offers membership insurance through Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance.

Autoinsure: www.autoinsure.org.
Autoinsure has a page with sterling insurance information for senior citizens. They can provide quotes from all the major auto insurance companies.

Esurance: www.esurance.com.
A rising star among insurance companies that take pride in stating: "Esurance doesn't just offer reliable insurance coverage, we also occupy in educating consumers." Their online quote process is easy to navigate.

US Insurance: www.usinsuranceonline.com
They will provide multiple auto insurance quotes tailored to specific needs within minutes of filling out their simple short acquire. It's easy then to compare them side by side to find the best prices and coverage.

Car Insurance Rates: www.carinsurancerates.com
Their network of companies and brokers offer a variety of car insurances: Farmers, Allstate, AIG, Nationwide, AARP, Safeco Insurance, Liberty Mutual, MetLife and Mercury.

Every insurance rate: www.everyinsurancerate.com
EveryInsuranceCompany.com is a handy Internet directory to regain local insurance companies, insurance quotes and discount insurance rates.

Quote Scout: www.quotescout.com.
This website will provide quotes from a long list of auto insurance companies - literally from "A" to "Z".

Insurance.com: http://www.insurance.com.
Insurance.com works directly with 15 highly rated car insurance companies in 46 states: 21st Century, Electric Insurance, Esurance Auto Insurance, The Hartford, Infinity, Liberty Mutual, Meritplan Insurance, MetLife Auto Insurance, Newport Insurance, Permanent General Assurance Corporation (The General), Progressive, QBE Insurance, Safeco, Travelers Insurance, and Unitrin Pronounce.

Keeping Auto Insurance Rates Down

There are ways that senior citizens can take responsibility to control their auto insurance rates. Here are a few suggestions.

According to seniorjournal.com, most of the major auto insurance agencies provide a 5% - 10% discount to drivers beginning at the ages of 50 or 55. However, as a group, drivers 75 and older have one of the highest rates of fatal daytime accidents. Because of this, it's well-known that senior drivers stay proactive and involved in keeping their driving skills sharp.

Many states offer an auto insurance discount for mature drivers if a person meets a given age criteria and has taken an approved old driver safety course. Local colleges and senior centers are good resources to learn about the classes. AARP has local and on-line access to the course. Costco offers its members an online drivers' safety training course through FirstNet: www.firstnetlearning.com.

Another way to keep auto insurance rates down is to drive a low-profile car, one that as fraction of a group has a lower rate due to minimum repair costs, considered safer and less likely to be stolen. Check the Highway Loss Data Institute, www.iihs.org, for the latest related data.

Examine unique auto insurance needs and requirements. Changing to higher deductibles or dropping collision or comprehensive coverage for older cars may make sense.

Always ask about discounts when purchasing or renewing auto insurance.

And finally, the best long-term advice: Always drive defensively, stay alert and follow the driving laws. Maintaining a safe driving record is the best way to keep auto insurance rates down.

5 Cheap to Insure Cars

admin — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 07:00:06 +0000

Is there any topic more slow than car insurance? But when talk turns to that new car or truck you had your eye on, your interest no doubt perked up. Am I right? So why, oh why, do so many new car buyers not check with their insurance agent as to how much this unique ride will affect their monthly premiums before actually signing on the dotted line?

Let's continue to be objective here—despite the hassle and trauma of having to go to a new car dealership, buying a current car is a very exciting experience that only comes along in one's life a limited number of times. So in the spirit of Boy Scout preparedness, what sort of variables could affect your insurance premiums for a new car, truck or SUV?

Contrary to what you might assume most SUVs have considerably higher insurance premiums than other vehicles because their accident claims are often times very costly. Not only are SUVs in more accidents but they also cause a lot more pain to other vehicles because of their size and the fact that their high bumpers can do a number on an itsy-bitsy subcompact.

To look at it from a different perspective, a Honda Accord might have a low accident rate but it is also the most stolen car in the United States. So if you live in a neighborhood with a high crime rate you might want to think twice before buying an Accord. Or a Camry. Why are such popular vehicles stolen so often? Because an in demand car has the added bonus of featuring in interrogate and more expensive parts.

While the reasons for a vehicle suffering from high insurance premiums is sometimes a mystery only understood by car insurance companies, in all likelihood you should have no trouble getting your agent to justify in clear English why the vehicle you want is going to cost so mighty on a long term basis. This is another reason why having a "live" car insurance agent is so helpful. You really can't find information like this just by pressing the # sign on an automated telephone service.

If you are an intelligent car shopper you no doubt did your research and estimated how much your new vehicle is going to cost in monthly payments. So why haven't you thought about how remarkable your insurance is going to cost month to month? Trust me, missing this one pivotal budgetary concept can cause serious financial hardship down the road.

Volve V50—No, a Volvo station wagon is not inexpensive to insure because it is dead to drive. This model, the V50 compact wagon, is stylish and even has a turbocharged 5 cylinder engine option. Even though this top of the line model has a highly powerful engine, insurance companies still look upon the V50 fondly due to its low incidence of accident and the fact that area wagons are the least stolen vehicles in America. So if you are in the market for a small to midsize SUV, check out V50. You will look more European driving it and you will save possibly hundreds of dollars a year in insurance costs over a comparably spacious SUV.

Suzuki SX4—While this Japanese oddball from Suzuki might sound like a left-field choice, it is the very fact that few SX4s are sold in this country that helps withhold its theft rate improper. But that is not to say this is a bad car. It is actually great fun to drive, is the lowest priced car in America with AWD and navigation as standard. You really can't beat that. And sometimes it's good to be a rebel and not follow the Corolla herd.

Mercury Milan—While I know this may sound weird that the Milan, a near exact copy of a For Fusion, has less expensive monthly premium rates than its fraternal twin there are a couple of factors at play. One, Mercury drivers get in fewer accidents than Ford drivers and for some reason the Mercury badge unbiased lacks that cache with car thieves. Gee, I wonder why!

Hyundai Santa Fe—Designed from the outset to feature bumpers that will impact properly with lower set cars, the Santa Fe is also pretty easy to repair. Add in a low rate of theft on this high value SUV proposition and you have the makings of a money saving star.

Toyota Prius—It may seem like everywhere you look people are driving these hybrid cars. But that still doesn't mean anyone wants to steal them. Is it because most car theft rings aren't savvy enough to dismantle a Prius, yet? Give them five or ten years. I am pretty sure thieves will have it figured out by then.

FDR and the Supreme Court

admin — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 06:55:01 +0000

Since the days of John Marshall and Marbury v. Madison, there has been a battle brewing between the head of the judicial branch, the Supreme Court, and the Chief Executive of the United States, the President. This battle has centered around the issue of the relationship between the three branches of government and how they maintain balance. No single moment in history so defined this discussion than the judicial crisis that occurred in 1937. Amidst allegations that the Court was assuming legislative powers, President Roosevelt sought to remedy the failure of his programs in the Supreme Court by changing the construction of the judiciary. This battle over which side was right and which side was within its powers ensured for a very short time but last long enough for its mark to be felt even today. The battle over the constitutionality of the New Deal pitted the Supreme Court, which based its arguments on history and tradition, against the Roosevelt administration, which had a sense of justice, reform, and a earn of “living” law. Roosevelt may not have won the battle over Court reform, but he won the war over the New Deal.

Different interpretations have come about in relation to Roosevelt’s attempts to reform the Court. One interpretation is that there may have been something substantial in the idea of an amendment. Members of this group say that perhaps an amendment would have provided legitimacy to the proposal to reform the Court’s composition. Another view of this conflict comes from liberal minded thinkers such as Hubert H. Humphrey. This group felt that the New Deal was extremely helpful in meeting the needs of the millions who were poor, starving, and destitute in Depression Era America. Any reasonable, moral means that were conventional to enact this legislation would be legitimate in their eyes. A third group of writers and scholars took a critical view of Roosevelt as a person whose zeal and lust for reform went beyond the necessity for such actions. This group proclaimed the Supreme Court the winner, as they asserted their traditional status and set aside the over achieving Executive back into his location.

The members of the Supreme Court were largely of an era of conservatism, with many of the nine justices throwbacks to the Coolidge, Harding, and Hoover administrations. The Court was composed of four political conservatives (Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, and Buther), two moderates (Chief Justice Hughes, Roberts) and three liberals (Brandeis, Stone, Carduzo) with the two moderates acting as a critical swing votes in many cases. Because of the political leanings of many of the justices, the Court took on a very strong stance against intervention, resisting interference from the Executive and Legislative branch. In the case of Crowell v. Benson, the Court decided in favor of allowing greater discretion for the Court to determine “jurisdictional” facts. Chief Justice Hughes determined the necessity and the responsibility of the Court to determine positive facts in cases without bureaucratic interference. For an already overburdened federal judiciary, this decision was both an assertion of judicial rights and, more importantly, a curse to deal with many more details in deciding a growing number of cases.

Going into this maelstrom of conservative thinking, Franklin Roosevelt threw himself into the fray. Seeking the Democratic nomination in 1932, Roosevelt ran as a progressive reformer who wanted to take charge of America. He wanted to appeal to farmers, laborers, the poor, and all others affected by the Depression. He ran for the nomination on reform policies under agriculture, conservation, economic recovery, and national planning. Roosevelt was riding a very strong tide on his way to the Democratic nomination and the presidency.

A foreshadowing of events to come happened on the way to the top for Roosevelt. In his quest for the Democratic nomination, Roosevelt encountered difficulties with his stance on the 18th amendment, which dealt with prohibition. Roosevelt did not take a particularly strong stance either way, but was closet anti-prohibitionist. In order to ensure his victory, Roosevelt took a very strong anti-prohibition stand, which was endorsed by many Democrats. Roosevelt’s main ally in this effort was the Association Against Prohibition Amendment, or the AAPA. This group would later become the American Liberty League, which laid down a deluge of criticism upon the New Deal as unconstitutional.

The more important lesson learned from this aside is that Roosevelt did not seem to have a grasp of what the public wanted out of the Constitution. Early indications seemed to point to an ineptitude by Roosevelt in determining how attached the public was to the institution of the Supreme Court and the judiciary as a whole. The public would rush to the Court’s support because, as Leuchtenberg said, “The greater the insecurity of the times, the more people cling to the few institutions which seem changeless.” This lack of a gauge for the public would damage Roosevelt a slight in the future, though he gained enough political power that such a weakness would be covered by an immense mandate from the electorate.

Roosevelt swept into the White House and began immediately to reform the federal government in order to work for the people. Roosevelt’s call for “action and action now” was a mantra that would continue throughout the first term of the administration. Roosevelt sent many different pieces of legislation to Congress, including Social Security, the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), and National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). All of these pieces were embraced wholeheartedly by pro-New Deal Democrats and the keen public, both whom waited anxiously to eye what Roosevelt would do next. Roosevelt’s first “100 Days” produced legislation that was original in purpose and delicate in scope. Never before had such sweeping legislation taken place and had been enacted at such a fast pace.

A stalwart force was waiting for the New Deal on its road to reform. The conservative Court engaged in a series of striking blows to the New Deal legislation, picking apart the constitutionality of many different aspects of the reform plan. A few cases came before the large push against the New Deal, specifically the gold clause case. This case dealt with the conversion of the gold dollar into paper currency and complaints from the public that the dollar standard had depreciated the value of their holdings and that the government should reimburse those who lost money in the conversion. Though this case ended up a paper victory for the Roosevelt administration, there was little consensus over the verdict. The majority decision, written by Chief Justice Hughes, stated that the government’s language of choice in contracts definite that Congressional power held strong over any change in contractual obligations. The obligation was not on Congress to pay back an amount that was parallel to inflation because it was dealing with gold dollars, not gold bullion. The Court came off as preaching to the Congress by scolding the legislature for irresponsible conduct to the public.

Two other cases acted as precursors to the true assault on the New Deal. The Court dealt with the petroleum industry in the “hot oil” cases. In their decision given on January 7, 1935, the Supreme Court found the petroleum provisions in the National Industrial Recovery Act to be unconstitutional because they were not in accordance with the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. Before this ruling, the executive branch could have regulated interstate trade of petroleum products if they did not meet quota standards. These standards were set in order to create an even playing field for petroleum producers. The Court used this ruling to further decimate the President’s ability to control the economy and allow the free market to fix itself.

The other case that would act as a foreshadowing of the discussion over the judiciary was the repeal of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1934. The act’s intention was to provide for a pension fund for railroad employees that had reached a certain level of seniority. The act was met with enthusiasm by the floundering rail industry, which was hard hit by economic woes. The Court, however, struck down the act by a 5-4 decision. The reasoning was based again in the interstate commerce clause and denied Congress the right to disperse funds in such a fashion as it had intended for the industry. The dissenting understanding, authored by Chief Justice Hughes, stated that the worst part of the Court’s decision was that it denied Congress any of its legislative rights by limiting its ability to help commerce through law. The frustration as becoming apparent for the moderate and liberal justices and it was apparent that any New Deal legislation would face the grievous scrutiny and utmost criticism of the Supreme Court. This was to be the battleground for the defeats of 1935 and 1936.

Now knowing the prelude to Court reform, it is possible to explore the most applicable cases in the debate over judicial reorganization and reform. The first case is the Schechter case, in which the Court was to determine whether Section 3 of the National Industrial Recovery Act was too sweeping in its authority to location legislatures. The case in particular dealt with live poultry codes in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. These codes determined sanitation, hours, wages, and other particulars dealing with the poultry industry in these states. The Court decided against these codes and the legislation as a whole on May 27, 1935. Chief Justice Hughes said in his opinion that the codes were dealing with intrastate commerce, which was outside of the jurisdiction of the commerce clause in the Constitution. He also stated that the NIRA was meant to effect rules of fair competition, not rules of sparkling practice. This distinction would carry through to many of the economic plans for the New Deal; Roosevelt wanted to even out the playing field for the millions impoverished by depression while conservatives sought a return to the big business practices of the 1920s.

The second case dealt with one of the cornerstones of the New Deal, the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The specific issue the Court was asked to address was the processing tax provision of the act, which provided all of the funding for the programs helping agriculture. The Supreme Court decided in October 1935 by a 6-3 majority that the provisions were unconstitutional. They were found unconstitutional in what Justice Stone in his dissent called “a tortured construction of the Constitution.” The majority opinion agreed that the tax provision was within regulatory parameters and that an enormous amount of money was to be raised by said taxes. The sticking point in the legislation, according to the majority, was that the funds were being allocated not to the government as a funding source but succor to farmers, apparently against the purpose of taxation according to the Court. The Court thwarted a tremendous cornerstone to the New Deal and, in the process, frustrated farmers and pro-New Dealers alike.

Supreme Court reform came to existence not in one burst but as an evolution of discussions and examinations by the Roosevelt administration. Roosevelt and his close associates started to watch options to reorganize the judiciary in the winter of 1935. This was on the cusp of the first few volleys by the Supreme Court to dissect the New Deal. While the temptation to jump right into the fray was probably tempting for Roosevelt, there was an election drive within a year and most definitely the need to work through the systems already in place. This was a need driven by the desperate times that existed due to the Depression and by the reliance of the American people on icons such as the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Roosevelt needed to show that the need for Court reform was not only within his power but was also the best thing for the nation.

As was demonstrated in earlier pages, there were several cases for the Roosevelt administration to base their claims for reorganization. The cornerstones for their liberal reform package were being knocked from underneath them and the house that Roosevelt built was in danger of collapsing. This being said, Roosevelt had Attorney General Homer Cummings initiate research on possible avenues of reorganization available to the administration. Cummings devoted the entire resources of the Justice Department from early 1935 until the birth of the legislation in December 1936. Cummings was the highest-level confidant on the Court issue for Roosevelt and was a capable political tactician. Cummings and Roosevelt would forge a partnership that would hold strong through the end of the reform campaign.

The process of judicial reorganization took a succor seat during the 1936 presidential campaign. Roosevelt’s mettle and integrity were tested on this topic by later conservatives, who concept that he was holding out on the policy because it would have jeopardized his reelection. Roosevelt and his staff held back on pushing for change because they wanted to let the decisions of the Court speak for themselves. He had put up many of his New Deal policies and the Court rebuked them harshly; in Roosevelt’s eyes, this was the only course of action that would allow for judicial reform. Roosevelt was inept at judging the temperament of the American public in dealing with prohibition. At this point, even the casual observer of history should note the subtle ingenuity of Roosevelt in dealing with electoral politics. Roosevelt knew that the results would speak for themselves and he reduced any rhetoric of change until the voters of America gave him a strong mandate.

Franklin Roosevelt emerged relatively unscathed from the election of 1936. The American electorate favored the liberal changes that Roosevelt was pursuing as well as the limited successes he had to that point. The Roosevelt administration, especially Interior Secretary Harold Ickes and Home Cummings, saw the election results as a mandate for the now growing need for Court reform. They had been piecing together bits of constitutional law and precedent in order to resolve what Roosevelt could have done to modify the court systems. They came upon four different ideas, all with their merits and disadvantages. The first option was to amend the Constitution in order to give expanded powers to the federal government, circumventing the repeated roadblocks to national recovery. Another option was to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as well as the lower courts, to hear certain cases. A third option was to require more than a simple majority to decide a case, eliminating swing votes and reflecting a more definitive vision of the Constitution. The final option was termed “court packing,” or placing more justices on the Court. “Packing” the judiciary required assigning a new junior justice to the Court when a current justice was not able to complete their duties. The “court packing” plan would rise above the other options as the winner in the reorganization derby but would face a long struggle.

Just after Christmas of 1936, Franklin Roosevelt and Homer Cummings engaged in many different conversations. Roosevelt and his closest confidants discussed how to point to the judicial reorganization plan to the nation. They decided to originate with some baiting during the Space of the Union address in late January. Cummings and two of his assistants, Benjamin Cohen and Thomas Corcoran, assign together a statement laced with both criticism of the judiciary as well as a promotion of fresh reform packages to counteract ones deleted by the Supreme Court. Roosevelt also showed some ambivalence in a statement on January 22, 1937, to the national press, saying that any legislation to reform the judiciary was “iffy”. This was all precursor to the political bombshell that Franklin Roosevelt would soon drop.

February 5th, 1937, was the dawn of a new relationship between the federal government and the Supreme Court. The Court’s composition and its nature had indeed been commented on in the past 150 years of the United States but not to the degree that it was addressed by the Roosevelt administration. Instead of a portion of the government or a secondary player, the Supreme Court was now seen as the enemy of progress, as a political player, and as the roadblock to helping a nation out of a quagmire of conservatism.

Franklin Roosevelt revealed his plans to a tremulous American press after sending his reorganization conception to Congress. In his address, he essentially read a letter from Homer Cummings that detailed the need for reorganization of the judiciary. Cummings displayed a long list of complaints that were all vital to the argument for reform. The first complaint was that the delay in justice as a defect in the system. All of the new cases that came to the Court dockets put pressure on the justices to render decisions expediently. The second complaint was that while there was a history of reform movements for the Supreme Court, most were met with derision and backlash. None was as substantive as the Roosevelt plan to reorganize and adjust the judiciary. Homer Cummings went on to say, “the evil is a growing one,” which required quick action and cooperation by Congress and the Court.

Roosevelt’s next proceed was to discuss this issue directly with the American people in his Fireside Chat of March 9, 1937. By this point, he had already heard many criticisms of the plan from the media and from many conservatives and moderates on Capitol Hill. With this in mind, Roosevelt explained the realities of reform and the situation at hand. He first said that the legislative approach that his administration endorsed would take a considerable amount of time. However, he reconciled this with “the need to meet the unanswered challenge of one third of a Nation ill-nourished, ill-clad, ill-housed.” Roosevelt would use the three-horse plow analogy in this discussion and many others to narrate the relationship of the Court with the other two branches of the government. The Supreme Court was going beyond its constitutional bounds and was acting, according to Roosevelt and other critics, as a legislative body instead of a judicial body. The Court was not pulling its part of the plow and leaving the other two horses to do the work.

Roosevelt explained the Court reorganization plan in detail. The judicial system had to work for the people, not act above them. The only way that Roosevelt saw to improve the judicial situation, while maintaining the sanctity of the Constitution, was to add new blood into all of the courts. There were two overriding reasons for such a policy. The first was to go justice to a quicker and more efficient path while keeping the integrity of the Court at the highest level. The second reason was that the installation of new and younger justices would place people in judicial positions that had experiences in the modern American society and economy. Roosevelt understanding that the older justices were out of touch with what the common person was going through, especially during the Depression.

Now, Roosevelt got to the core of his presentation. He went on to say, “I now propose that we establish by law and assurance against any such ill-balanced Court in the future. I propose that hereafter, when a believe reaches the age of seventy, a new and younger judge shall be added to the Court automatically. In this diagram, I propose to enforce a sound public policy by law instead of leaving the composition of our federal courts...to be determined by chance...” This plan, according to the president, would put the Court back into its historical and factual role as a judging, not a governing, body. Roosevelt wanted the Constitution and, more specifically, the judiciary to become piece of a “living law.” Roosevelt sought to reinvigorate the liberal conscience of the nation by reforming the court system and stated that the legislative near would be the quickest and most painless way to do this goal.

At the outset of the judicial reorganization issue, the odds looked overwhelmingly in the favor of Roosevelt’s plans. Following the November sweep of national elections in 1936, the Democratic Party had overwhelming support and an apparent mandate from the American public. They ran on the same platform that had won them the 1932 elections but with the large sweep of liberal policies, the nation was clamoring for more. The House had four times as many Democrats as Republicans. The Senate seemed to be very promising, with several prominent Democrats jumping to sponsor the reorganization bill. Majority Leader Joseph Robinson and Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Fountain Ashurst were only two of many liberals to befriend the bill. Roosevelt supporters and non-affiliated supporters alike saw the “court packing” policy as an dependable “un-packing” of the Court. They were attempting to remove conservative roadblock that were packing up the dockets with their rhetoric and political leanings. Senator Robert Bulkley of Ohio stated the goals of the liberals succinctly: “A constitution is not an idol to be worshipped; it is an instrument of government to be worked.” The fight was under way and like anything else during the Roosevelt administration, the judiciary and Congress would never be the same.

A variety of voices entered the discussion on judicial reorganization. One such voice was Robert LaFollette, the Progressive senator from Wisconsin. LaFollette’s support for Roosevelt and the reform plan was not unbiased party based. In a speech given to NBC Radio on February 13, 1937, LaFollette described the judicial reorganization opinion as an extension of the Founding Fathers’ intent. The senator explained that those who wrote the Constitution were against “judicial usurpation and refused to regard the Supreme Court as sacrosanct.” He further described the debate as an narrate of special economic interests versus the will of the public. This argument set forth the accepted dichotomy of the liberal cruise of observers during this debate. The most vital point that LaFollette made in his speech was the importance of Congress as the first line of defense against economic and social problems. In this sense, the Supreme Court was separated from the real heart of the problems in America. They were a group of nine old men who had no idea on what the realities of American life were in this era. LaFollette wanted the proposal for reorganization to pass in order to remedy this problem of judicial usurpation.

If the prevailing opinion of politicians, writers, and observers was similar to Robert LaFollette, no doubts would exist of the massive succor that Roosevelt claimed. Many spoke out against Roosevelt’s plan to change the Court because of the dangerous power it would have given to the executive branch in the present and future. One such critic was George E. Farnum, a member of the Boston Bar Association and former U.S. Attorney General.

Farnum spoke at a Young Men’s Republican Club gathering on March 1, 1937. The tone of his speech was considerable and presented a dire place for the government if liberal legislation was to pass. Farnum said, “American people have abruptly arrived at a fork in the road. In one direction lies a continuance of those methods of free government with which they have been long acquainted; in the other lies unexplored territory.” The former Attorney General also said that Roosevelt tricked the American public by not running on the reorganization plan in his 1936 election drive. With this in mind, he observed that the Supreme Court was the last bastion of honesty and sanctity in the federal government. George Farnum saw the political apocalypse looming and warned fellow conservatives to take action against the seemingly greedy motivations of Franklin Roosevelt.

The public weighed in heavily on the issue of “court packing,” which affected the distribution of aid and employment to millions throughout the nation. A glimpse into American life at this point shows the true indicators of public will. Predictions, debates, and discussions were daily occurrences in the United States and a few examples will be illustrated here.

Debates on the topic of judicial reorganization and its consequences were very approved during the larger discourse about the Supreme Court. On March 11, 1937, a debate took place between Clarence J. Shearn, a lawyer from New York City, and Morris L. Ernst, an author and lawyer. Shearn portrayed the conservative sentiment in the debate, saying that Roosevelt’s conception was an attempt to give him some insulation from any failure for his New Deal programs. The reforms suggested would give Roosevelt “...six votes in favor of legislation.” Ernst, however, defended Congress and the President in their endeavors. His argument was that the reorganization plan was an attempt to fight against dubious Supreme Court decisions. This debate was one of many that acted as a middle ground between the rhetoric of government and the basic needs of the American people.

Predictions were abounding in the public sphere by many different means. Groups like the National Consumer League came out with statements in support of the president’s plan. In one statement by the League, they proclaimed that they regarded “...the proposed judiciary reform...as a legitimate means to meet the emergency created by these recent decisions...” Comments like this were votes of confidence to be sure, though lurking behind each of these statements was another comment against the President. Such commentary came from actions like the one performed by Representative Edward O’Neill of Fresh Jersey. O’Neill sent out a poll of sentiment to his constituents, asking several questions in regards to approval for the judicial reorganization plan. O’Neill came assist with the result that 56 percent of respondents were strongly opposed to the plan and only 25 percent were strongly for it. O’Neill’s results spoke to a need of his constituents toward established institutions and away from the uncertainty of the liberal proposals.

Discussion produced a great wealth of public opinion that is invaluable for this analysis. The bar associations of a mountainous deal of states discussed the issue of judicial reorganization because of the vitality of the issue to their profession. The American Bar Association took a definitive stance, shown in poll results given on March 15, 1937. These results showed that all state bars were against the reorganization view. The numbers were astounding: 16, 182 members were against the measure, while a mere 2,563 were for the court measure. Specifically, the state of Florida’s bar association voted overwhelmingly against the Court plan, in a 124-37 vote taken on April 4, 1937. Commenting on these results was President Frederick Stinchfield of the Florida Bar Association, who said that the result of passing this policy would be an all-powerful government. These results were very telling of the direction in which many middle to upper class citizens would throw their support; lawyers belonged to these classes and, in general, acted in politically conservative ways.

Franklin Roosevelt was no doubt vocal during this entire debate. In a speech at a Democratic Victory dinner on March 4, 1937, Roosevelt stated that the successes of the Democratic Party in the past elections were only a beginning. His vision and his motivation were to ensure for future generations a “Nation intact, a Nation at peace, a Nation prosperous,” assuming such a result would come from the reorganization plan. He compared the battle over the Supreme Court to that over slavery at the beginning of American history. That battle took over sixty years of debate before a civil war ended in emancipation. Roosevelt said that thousands were speaking in protest of what the Court was doing and this was a striking feature of American democracy. Roosevelt turned the Court debate into something that would strike at the hearts of the public: a battle between the tenets of democracy and autocracy.

The true test of how the reorganization understanding would go was in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. These hearings were to settle the constitutionality and feasability of changing the composition of the Court. The Roosevelt administration had the potential and the ability to turn these hearings into their own soapbox in which they could expound the dire need of judicial reorganization. Instead, the administration played it close to the vest in their testimony, confident of their support in the Senate. This would prove to be a mistake, especially considering the coverage given to the hearings by media outlets. The conservative forces in the Senate and in the federal government at large turned the hearings into an examination of the real motives of the Roosevelt administration. Testimony from Senator Burton Wheeler, a old ally, was scathing in attacking the reasons for reform. Wheeler went after Roosevelt for using age as the primary motive for his own personal power and his agenda as a close second motive. This debate quickly turned into a debacle, with the opposing forces bringing in speaker after speaker to attempt to discredit the Roosevelt administration. The Senate hearings began as a megaphone for judicial reorganization, but quickly turned into a podium for the status quo.

Events took an interesting turn first on March 29, with a reversal of decision by the Court in the Parrish case. This case dealt with an act in Washington state that would provide a minimum wage statewide. More importantly, it was the dawn of a new day for the Supreme Court. The key to this decision, like future reversals, was the swing vote of Justice Roberts. The reason for his change of heart was that the articulate of public opinion was finally hitting home with the Court. Roberts, like other judges, did not want to have his power diminished by new associate justices. He was also, more than likely, coerced by Chief Justice Hughes (a fellow moderate) to switch his vote in order to placate the public and the Roosevelt administration. Whatever the reason, the Court was turning a new leaf in order to preserve itself.

The greater of the reversals came on March 24, 1937. The Court decided in favor of the Social Security Act, specifically on issues of job insurance and pensions. Justice Cardozo wrote the opinions for the two cases dealing with the act, stating that current economic conditions required Social Security. Specifically, he said, “needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the well being of the nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times. The hope behind this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poorhouse as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot waits them when journey’s end is near.” Cardozo echoed the fears that Roosevelt supporters had been crying out for months. It appeared that Roosevelt had won the war of attrition.

The consequences of these reversals were twofold. First, a general accomplish was to consume site upon all levels of government. Local and state governments now had powers that they had not realized in the past. This would be key in helping communities throughout America gear up for a world war and for future economic downfalls. The second consequence was more obvious and immediate. The Supreme Court gained control of its enjoy destiny for a brief moment in history. However, the Court also became weakened because of the way in which the reversal of decisions came. After months of struggle and criticism, the Court yielded to popular opinion. The Court’s actions were an admission that it was indeed a political entity, embroiled in the same amount of posturing as the rest of the federal government. The Court preserved itself but lost some of the power it had during past conservative administrations when it was seen as an independent arbiter of the Constitution.

Roosevelt did not yield, however. The president pressed forward with his reform plans, despite the advice of his cabinet and staff members. This advice became more apparent with the pending retirement of Justice VanDevanter and potentially a few more justices. This would have allowed the president to nominate (and likely have confirmed) several of his own justices, creating a liberal majority in the Court. His advisors also wanted him to focus on other issues neglected during the court debate. The fight was not worth winning any more, according to many.

The fact that the Court reversed their decisions on a few key cases did not satisfy Roosevelt. The Court could have easily switched back to the more conservative approach they had come into the debate with. Roosevelt also wanted to insure the strength of the Supreme Court and all other courts for the future. He felt that the reform approach was not a lost cause and would be easier to pass with the decreasing pressure on the issue by the public and media.

The demise of the bill occurred in a deliberate manner after the reversals of the Court. A few factors ensured the downfall of the bill, but one in particular signaled the unilateral opinion of concession on the fight. Senator Joe Robinson was the key figure in the Senate on the pro-reorganization side. Robinson had worked for months to get a majority to pass the bill and worked after the Court’s change of heart toward a modern fight for the bill. The senator was also in line to net Justice VanDevanter’s seat in the Court, which would have solidified a liberal majority in the judiciary. However, Joe Robinson passed away on July 14, 1937, of a heart attack. On July 22nd, following the funeral of Robinson, the bill was sent back to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it was left there to perish. Robinson’s death was the death of Court reform.

Following the death of the bill, the Court would take shape in a way that Roosevelt himself could not have foreseen. Several justices retired or passed away in the period between 1937 and 1943. Franklin Roosevelt would nominate eight associate justices and a chief justice in those 6 years, guaranteeing a turnover of both experience and political ideology. Among his nominees were Hugh Black, replacing VanDevanter in 1937; Stanley Reed, the solicitor general, as a replacement for Sutherland; and Roosevelt power broker Felix Frankfurter to replace Cardozo. The Court took on a remarkably new look.

First, the Supreme Court became youthful. The average age of the new justices was 56, very young in comparison with justices from all levels of the judicial system. Second, the president’s appointees were all “vote getters,” all having held office or being involved in electoral politics in some way in the past. This was important because the Court was coming to grips with its political nature and needed leaders accustomed to the system. By this same token, the new justices had little judicial experience, having worked in politics for the majority of their careers.

The power struggle between Supreme Court and the President changed the federal government to the prove day. The Court allowed the whims of public thought to influence its decisions. The justices may have saved themselves in the short term, but over the next decade, the Court became drastically more liberal, going against the underlying motive of the chief judicial body in preserving its conservative stronghold. Roosevelt came off as an arrogant bully trying to grab more power from the holds of the last bastion of constitutional integrity. In reality, Roosevelt was not only attempting to get his own legislation passed; he was trying to reform the Court so unusual problems would not occur again. Roosevelt was forward thinking in his motives to change the Court. He wanted a younger, more informed group of justices who would look out for the best interests of a nation recovering from economic depression. It appeared that he was only preserving his own power when, in reality, this was unrealistic. Even if that were the case, his actions were to change the Court in the present day. The judicial branch is beholden to the other two branches of government in deciding its consistency and its viability. This necessity was born out of the judicial reorganization drive of 1937. Roosevelt locked away his legacy as an economist, a war leader, and a social reformer.

The Only Review of the State of the Union Address by President Bush You Need to Read

admin — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 07:59:24 +0000

The only Review of the State of the Union Address by President Bush you need to Read.
By ABH Alexander

Surprise, President Bush says some things are good; others could be better. For President Bush or any other President to engage in anything less than optimistic pitch for a State of the Union Address would be the real shock. Personally, it was a welcome relief from those that spend their time in address self-aggrandizing alleged accomplishments as if they did everything.

A rapidly overview of the reaction to the address on the Internet will showcase the shallow thinking Bush-haters. My only wish is that they would truly review what he said and find those elements truly worth amplifying on or criticizing in depth. Merely typing in, "gee, I almost puked" and "ugh" doesn't really say much does it. All things considered for Bush, it was one of his smoother deliveries, although not up to be measured with a fine orator.

If you've yet to pull back and look between the lines, this review could make you sound even more informed than most of those high profile political pundits. Bush does provide enough targets to criticize and he also provides a few areas to endorse. For you the reader it's now time to absorb. For the Bush-haters, get over it and please stop buying that propagandist research that we've already killed 700,000 Iraqis since the invasion. At least 50% of the research was paid for by George Soros and according to researchers on a novel Glen Beck point to, they found there were two other nebulous contributors who couldn't be traced. There was also little evidence of the mechanics of the survey to be investigated, filled out copies of the survey etc. Beware you'll start growing a personal credibility gap spouting figures like those.

The State of the Union Address
President Bush claimed in his opening remarks about the tests the United States faced, the war, economy, health, etc. His rather vague optimistic note was that we have answered the call, the reality is that it looks like the phone is quiet off the hook and there is collected a lot of answering to do.

The polarization between left and proper, conservative vs. liberal, Republican and Democrat is stifling in enough ways to consider its exact conclude on the economy.
Bush and many others want to make tax cuts permanent and stimulate the economy with another tax cut. Yet, within this stimulus is a major wart, a rebate for illegal aliens who have been here awhile. That is actually part of this bill that as of February 2, 2008 has not been passed. Fortunately civilians on the front watch line have faxed, emailed and phoned their reps and congressman to voice their protest and the bill has slowed down in the processing stage. You can make a contrast don't ever forget that.

The mainstream press here won't go into too many details on anything that would cost you taxpayers more money, particularly illegal aliens. This tax stimulus likely includes not only rebates for illegal aliens but who knows how many billions in pork.

When you hear about Congressman So&So or the President who is against a bill which on the surface has a very wonderful name, like the Let's give back all the tax money act (yes, this is a fictional name) you will probably think that So&So is a jerk. It is likely there is more to be told and unless you dig it out yourself, you'll just be manipulated during the news like a lot of folks. A few possibilities about what your not being told about the bill:
1)
So&So protests the bill because the earmarks/pork he/she had inserted in it are not part of the bill.
2)
So&So feels his efforts are not properly represented in the bill. This could be a good thing or a bad thing depending upon which way he goes with the special interests that are leaning on him/her.
3)
So&So supports more taxes and ways to take money out of peoples pockets whenever he/she can. While that would most likely make he/she a democrat, more and more Republicans are joining in with the get it while you can attitude. If So&So feels they could use this bill to find more from the people they may want to be positive that it will. This translates to control, power and that is what knowledgeable citizens used to call Socialism, where the site has nearly all the money and decides how to redistribute the wealth.
4)
You have in the blank here, and let me know what you can add.

The strategy of the more liberal side of the aisle has been transparent for years, simply buy your vote. With enough of your tax money, that rarely used road can be built, perhaps money for a business, or grant to one of your constituents who has contributed and forced other to contribute to your campaign.

It appears Socialism in spite of the terrible history surrounding it, is still resplendent to many Americans. There have been great accidental experiment that should be a reminder to all who believe a government big enough to give you everything you want, won't take everything you have.

In 1945, Germany was devastated by WW II, between Allied bombers, tanks and the Russians laying waste to anything little was left standing. Eventually the eastern sector would be walled off from the western sector and the two economies would grow in vastly different ways for 45 years. Many agree there are quiet unification problems but they stemmed from trying to assimilate the Eastern Communist or Socialist system which paid its workers less, gave far less incentive for accomplishment and genuinely did its best to accelerate motivated people over and under the wall or die trying.

According to an article by Volker Kluepfel in the Baltimore Chronicle, "Infrastructure and industry did not approach the same level in the East as it did in the West. Large parts of East German housing were either neglected over the years or built with corrupt materials, or both." A lot of badly needed building has been done since.

Simply by comparing two systems with the same people over the same time should serve as a very real comparison between capitalism and socialism. OK, capitalism is not perfect either, but compared to the phony redistribution of wealth proposed by most politicians today, we should know by now that just gets us more government control and intrusiveness and less income? Where is the media on giving staunch coverage to what a politician means?

Those in the news media rarely give fair and balanced coverage to anyone. However, to their credit, Talk show hosts like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Rielly don't characterize themselves as news people and openly admit they are broadcasting their opinions. This is truly free speech and one that should continue regardless of what side of the political spectrum you fall on. If you don't like it, don't listen, if you don't listen you're likely no more equipped to comment on what they say than a monkey can recite the Gettysburg Address.

At least you know what your getting up front vs. the mainstream press, which uses every possible propagandist technique to sway your concept one map or another under the guise of journalism. It was reported that Katie Couric's comment about the State of the Union Address was, "A lot of it was a Bush redux". This was before CBS and most of the rest of the press lavished more time on discussing the recent endorsement of Sen. Barrack Obama by Edward "Teddy" Kennedy. Any cursory review of the amount of time the press fawns on the Democratic versus Republican candidates should be more than enough to convince them of biased, politically based broadcasting. In case you're wondering what you'll salvage, expect a 10-1 up to 50-1 advantage in time spent discussing the Democratic candidates over the Republican ones. How fair and balanced is that?

What about those Earmarks?
When Dr. Ron Paul (R) TX, was being grilled by Tim Russert in his December appearance on Meet the Press (MTP), he was slammed for submitting earmarks in Congress. Dr. Paul has about 50 earmarks he has okayed, which mostly concern themselves with water issues in his district. These earmarks would collect approved and Dr. Paul would then vote against them, earning him the nickname, Dr. NO. Putting them up for approval showed he was appeasing his constituency while voting no would keep his basic principals sound. Russert would hear of none of it labeling Dr. Paul "inconsistent" and moving onto another subject fast. Dr. Paul requested that Russert ask political candidates the same questions asked of him, Russert replied he would.

As most Presidential candidates have gotten only a portion of the MTP show to do the Q&A dance with Tim Russert, it was indicative of just how far the media will bend for NY Senator Hillary Clinton when her interview went on for the whole hour! Russert even said this was unprecedented. At least during the first 45 minutes it was even commercial free!

With all this time you would think the subject of Hillary's earmarks might come up, Russert had promised and well, didn't remark. Hillary Clinton has to her credit over 261 earmarks which are nearly 200 more than both Obama and Edwards combined (although Edwards doesn't figure into it anymore). Most of these earmarks went to groups, organizations who also contributed to her campaign. According to a picture on thenation.com the Village Voice called her Mama Warbucks after she threw about 148.4 million dollars in earmark money to the defense industry in the Original York area. Is this how politics is tolerated now, public money being used to purchase your vote? For you history buffs, this is history repeating itself again; politicians as early as those in the decaying days of the Roman Empire did the same thing, it didn't work than either.

While Russert played at acting tough and Hillary played at acting tougher both were engaged in a very softball interview game. It would seem most in the mainstream press can't get on their knees fleet enough to bow before the new Queen.

During Bush's address he appropriately targeted earmarks as a problem. (Duh) Bush wanted them reduce and the cost down, Congress has failed miserably. That polarization and congressional greed factor comes into economic play right here. The President said he would veto any such future bill. Unfortunately, President Bush has an oppressive habit of grabbing more power for the Executive Branch whenever he can and he stated, "I will issue an Executive Order that directs Federal agencies to ignore any future earmarks that is not voted on by Congress. If these items are truly worth funding, the Congress should rebate them in the commence and hold a public vote". More power thru Executive Order can marshal more power and attention towards the sitting president and George W. Bush has pushed through a lot of Executive Orders. A fleet Google of "executive orders George Bush" will get numerous cites with the numbers since 2001 totaling up to 264 in his two terms. A quick comparison with his two-term predecessor, Bill Clinton reveals he's still got a plot to go to derive up, Clinton had 354. Clinton detached lags a bit behind the other two-term President, Ronald Reagan with 380! Hey, this is a trend, what's Congress doing about that?

The finest health care in the world?
Bush stated he wanted to fabricate a future of quality health care. Bush wants to do this by "expanding consumer choice, not government control". Great to give consumers more choice from a selected list of well regulated health care providers, but a lot of people don't want that. The alternative health care industry is growing by leaps and bounds, simply because it has become more of a business than anything else. People are waking up to the fact today that mainstream medicine is about finding treatments, not cures; it is about turning healthy people into long-term patients with pharmaceuticals which have side effects requiring additional pharmaceuticals. The real health care revolution will come when you can get your chelation therapy and homeopathic herbs paid for with your insurance money. The great news is that it would drastically reduce what people utilize on health care anyway. (Compare percentage of GNP spent on health care by other countries and what they gather for it). Shouldn't we be finding ways to reduce what we pay and eliminate waste, not find ways to take money from other federal agencies to pay for it?

Bush proposed ending the tax code bias against people not buying health insurance thru their employer. The President stated, "This would put private coverage in reach for millions". While Bush had other recommendations for Congress, the mainstream press did spend some time downgrading even this meager effort. NPR, announced in its critique, Such a move would only help about nine million of the forty-seven million who don't have insurance. Where they got that nine-million figure from they never said.

For the citizens who have been grossly misinformed by this statement the 47 million total figure you need to be aware it is inflated with ten to twelve million illegal aliens, guess that one unprejudiced slipped by the NPR newspuppies. Furthermore, couldn't those nine million use some kind of break?

The only question among Democrats about health care is how can we afford it? The assumption of increased costs is a given here. Taking money from agency D and putting it with agency H is their main solution.

Just so you can glean some idea what you are paying, Americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and half times the industrialized world's median of $2,193, according to a democratic blog on the subject : http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/? p=333

Republicans echo similar refrains, and then came up with the costly Health Care Savings Accounts. To their credit they do propose tax deductions for the cost of high-deductible health insurance premiums in conjunction with HSAs--and tax credits for low-income families buying their own health insurance.
The answers from both parties do not resolve the issue and it is likely due to the powerful special interest lobby from big pharmacorp it won't be resolved in a more healthy more efficient user friendly way.

The price if we don't pay attention? Currently somewhere between 783,000 and 999,000 people die or are injured needlessly every year in the U.S. health care system, the next one could be you or someone close.

You could do a lot for yourself and others by sharing what is happening in U.S. hospitals and how the actual quality of care and emphasis on treatment versus cure has undermined any proper ethical approach to the healing arts.
Check out: http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_02.htm

Trade Questions
The President did well in bringing up our deplorable international trade situation. When President Woodrow Wilson abolished many international import tariffs in the early 1900's he greatly damaged what was then a very powerful and profitable country. To remedy the situation Wilson set aside the burden on the backs of its citizens with a progressive income tax. Sure it started out a lot smaller than where it is today, but that's why Democratic politicians like Hillary Clinton have said they prefer to be called "progressive". As Hillary Clinton has said, she has a thousand ideas; only its doubtful America has the money to fund them all. This progressive ideology is taken directly from what were called Fabian Socialists spawned before the 20th century and gaining a strong foothold in the Democratic Party by 1920. They have to find the money for all their ideas somewhere? By making all taxes progressively larger over time, the money will find a way out of your pocket and progressively into an every increasing bloated, inefficient bureaucracy!

Bush admitted to the nation, "Now I ask you to approve agreements with Columbia, Panama, and South Korea. Many products now enter America duty free, yet many US products face steep tariffs in their markets". This has been going on since Wilson, we let them come in for free, often without even inspecting the cargo and they charge the U.S. when we export, what is fair about that?

Anti-Bushies and Socialists would call any revision of such policy protectionism or isolationist. After all, we can't go backwards, that wouldn't be progressive. If we could it might befriend to promote more respect for granting access to the greatest market in the world for exports. Making countries pay equal or fair tariffs would relieve in eliminating the income tax and would truly level the international playing field.

Energy Questions
When it comes to solving the energy query, it's a shame that neither party lacks the adequate integrity to fully address the needs of the people.
The Democrats have been hijacked by the global-warming jihadists who claim we need hundreds of billions of dollars right now to solve the problem. After all, mankind is the sole reason for global warming right? Yes, mankind contributes, no doubt about it, but the right amount is what is debatable. When compared to what mother nature and the suns contributions to global warming mankind's contribution has been estimated at a maximum of 10% or less by some (see the video Global Warming Swindle). The main cause of global warming, is our loveable sun, which is heating up the other planets in our lovely little solar system. FYI, recent observations of a immense polarizing sunspot in late 2007 indicate the warming trend in our solar system will not only continue but get worse before it gets better.

When it comes to mankind addressing the mess they make, according to the Woods Hole Research Center the standards set by the Kyoto Protocols "would result in a just a 5.2% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels, reducing anthropogenic emissions from around 7.2 billions tons per year to about 6.8 billion tons per year".
Check website: http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/kyoto.htm
(as such emissions are related to man, don't know if we can include cow methane aka cow farts, in that total, or if they were) Currently, the United States is already doing better than most of the other 36 developed countries in the 170+ who have ratified the accord when it comes to reducing our emissions.

Total carbon emissions by the United States in 2006 were less 1.5% from our 2005 total, the first drop since 2001
Check: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/
When you boil out all the propaganda in the global warming swear, the reality is that two-thirds of the world's carbon emissions are produced by just ten countries. The most developed, the United States is top with about 25%, China was #2 in 2003 with Russia, Japan, India and Germany behind, but at least in Germany's case they have decreased their emissions by about 9%.

On the other hand China continues to escalate its emissions up from 47% in 2003 to the most recent 54% announced at the UN's Bali climate conference in 2007.
Check: http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/CO2/2004.htm
China seems to have other countries bullied into a position of tolerance because they are still "developing". If you are looking to translate that into any real action against global emissions by China, forget it.

While Republicans in general suggest opening more oil fields in Alaska, reduced consumption, nuclear and coal power there is simply not enough interest in either side in promoting or doing serious research on technology that now exists that would solve the spot.

Bush mentioned his desire to complete an international agreement, "to stupid, stop and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases". This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride. The U.S. is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change".

One can't help but wonder if that was a veiled message to China that the U.S. would not tolerate their "we won't do anything attitude". Have you heard how bad it gets in Beijing on some days? If you are going to Beijing for the Olympics, be sure and bring or catch plenty of air filters or masks. Ah, the sweet smell of LA smog may actually be an improvement over Beijing.

Republicans seem to be enamored with the incredibly expensive ethanol gas products and even hydrogen fuel. The short story on ethanol, it just costs too much to produce and helps in jacking up the price of food stuffs. When it comes to hydrogen the government wants to institute a hydrogen fuel infrastructure with gas stations offering a hydrogen refilling space for you 50-100 gallon tank of hydrogen you are driving on. If you don't mind riding on a bomb, paying billions of dollars to create such an infrastructure, than this ones for you.

There are promising solutions being worked on, not by major corporations yet, but dedicated scientists around this country who see the silver lining in the dark energy clouds ahead. The first to offer a solution was Nicola Tesla, which was in the early 1900's! Tesla offered to construct a system where energy itself could be transmitted fair like communication waves are done today. This would allow any remote location the ability to tap into this energy, but without monitoring and paying for it his major sponsor Financial Power J.P. Morgan pulled all funding.

Today optimists still offer seeds of hope, one such man was Yull Brown, who found a way to perform a process called electrolysis of water, which separates the hydrogen from the water and provides the oxygen from that to burn it as fuel. The product would be called Browns Gas and it was first employed in the welding industry. If you're still using acetylene or something else, man are you paying more money than you need to. Imagine your fuel is water and you can burn hotter, with the only residue, water vapor. Even wikpedia.com has more on this. You can find patents on these devices that date back to the 1977!
Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen

The lesson from Browns gas is that hydrogen gas could be produced on demand and there is no need to refill massive tanks creating that additional hazard. Could technology help motor our cars, power our homes? Some would say yes, among them Denny Klein of Florida who not only promotes the use of his HHO gas welding machine but also the conversion of this power to automobiles. The HHO gas works, it's hotter, cuts down on welder's time, safer, no soot residue and is fueled by splitting hydrogen and oxygen from the electrolysis of water. The case for using HHO gas to power autos and homes may not be proven yet. Win a few moments and Google HHO Gas to learn more (over 91,000 hits). Plus, you can review a few comments from the blogosphere:
This comment is about a big Venture Capitalist visiting Klein at his facilities in Florida, from: http://aquygen.blogspot.com/

Essentially, this person has visited with Klein at his facilities in Florida. His conclusion is that this is a classic case of a technology with many immediate practical applications but in needing of funding and guidance to enact it's true potential. Accordingly, Aquygen has the potential to be a blockbuster invention. Will we all be driving water powered cars? Only time will convey. For my part, I did some poking around on this particular VC firm and found it to be involved in many enormous projects (read multi-billion dollar infrastructure type projects).

To find out how bureaucracy has hampered the development of a few really good alternative ideas to the infernal combustion engine, check out the video: Who Killed the Electric Car. Done in the guise of a not so mysterious murder, the film was released in DVD form in November 2006 by Sony Pictures Entertainment and shows how the promise of the battery operated General Motors car called the EV1 was killed off by oil, energy and auto interests. The important developer of the vastly superior batteries needed for the EV1 was Stanley Ovshinsky, who according to Wikpedia.com, has invented amorphous semiconductor materials, which gave rise to a whole unusual segment of material engineering, aiding in the construction of semiconductors, solar energy, and electric cars. Today, these materials are mature in photocopy machines, fax machines and LCD displays. Many hope Ovshinsky is not too embittered by how the EVI project was crushed and that he will continue to develop even more advanced batteries which are not patent protected by the company he worked with. (see photo of electric car)

The film shows numerous celebrities; Mel Gibson, Tom Hanks, Alexandra Paul, Ed Bagely Jr. and others driving the EV1 and many other protesting the final destruction of 79 of them in spite of the willingness of many to buy out the vehicles leases.

Even though the EV1 appeared to explain great potential GM felt that destroying these vehicles and converting the electric car plant to a Hummer vehicle factory was the thing to do.

The battery issue has likely been advanced further since the 90's. Possibly by Ovshinsky and perhaps another company called EEstor, based in Cedar Park, Texas.

Again, the Wikpedia version of the company, The company claims to have developed a superior type of super capacitor, using barium titanate coated with aluminum oxide and glass, to accomplish a level of capacitance much higher than what is currently available in the market.
Using this technology the company claims that it can produce a high-energy storage device that will be suited to current chemical batteries. The company has started construction of new production facilities to bring their product to market.Richard Weir is CEO and President, as well as the inventor named on their necessary technology patent.

Within the blogosphere there was this statement: It looks like Lockheed Martin is adding credibility to EEStor's claims by announcing an investment in their technology. Terms were not disclosed. From the article on CNET: EEStor is developing a ceramic battery chemistry that could provide 10 times the energy density of lead acid batteries at about a tenth of the weight and volume, according to Lockheed. A Lockheed spokesman said the company is interested in energy storage systems a soldier can carry, but also car batteries and energy systems for remote buildings. Check out the entire article at: http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9848081-7.html? tag=nefd.top

For skeptics out there they can always point to the efforts of the Clinton Administration, they created the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles which floundered for eight years. American car manufactures signed up, but Honda and Toyota did not and they did produce hybrid vehicles ahead of their U.S. counterparts. This was one of many instances where Bill Clinton demonstrated he was more concerned with perception than reality.

Immigration Issue
President Bush took a swipe at the illegal immigration issue, to his credit he didn't succumb to the new phrase promoted by radical groups like La Raza who want to reframe the whole mess into a racial or civil rights reveal. That new phrase is "undocumented worker or undocumented individual". Those using that phrase are usually going to promote illegal immigration as OK. The negative effects of gang, drug related deaths, US taxpayer paid free health care, taxpayer paid tuition at schools, the refusal to adopt the language of this country (unbiased press 2 if you want this text in Spanish) and let's not forget all those stories of drunk illegal immigrants smashing and killing someone on the road and then being let off the hook and maybe sent back across the border. Perhaps when they come here again illegally, we hope they drive sober, but they don't have to. My sympathies to those who have lost loved ones this way.

President Bush says he wants to create a lawful method for foreign workers to come here and befriend our economy. The fact that a lawful contrivance has existed for years and its called legal immigration is probably no longer politically correct enough to mention. The other problem is that with the current numbers of illegal immigration, sending them all back home becomes a logistical nightmare no right or left thinking politician wants to tackle.
It is correct that the labor of many hard working illegals does contribute to the economy? The real question is at what price is this contribution being made? And how much are they really contributing?

While Vincente Fox was El Presidente of Mexico, he made it a point to promote the illegal invasion and made a major point to tell those coming to the U.S. to send money support to your families in Mexico. The amount of that Mexican contribution is conservatively pegged upwards of 15 billion American dollars a year and growing.

This is not to blame those who genuinely come to the United States for any chance at a better opportunity to send money back to their poor families. Mexico is more of a narco-state and it's surrendering to the drug cartels has done shrimp to build a sounder, safer more financially vibrant infrastructure south of the border. Do not blame the families, blame the governments who allow it to happen. Perhaps Mexico would get stronger if U.S. borders were tougher to penetrate.

"When it comes to hospitals; Illegal immigrants generally live at or below the poverty line, and are afforded no federal or state subsidized health care coverage. They are eligible for free emergency care, but this has traditionally been abused because illegal immigrants have no other source of care. Thus, they visit emergency rooms for non-urgent care, which contributes to the $250 million annual hospital reimbursements for free care provided for non-urgent visits."
From: http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/courses/pps255s/2002/t-team-b/illegal.htm

Foreign war and policy matters
Many Bush haters blast the President for what are labeled nation-building efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. While these efforts are likely to have more holes than any nation can plug, an improvement in the situation is possible. Plus, historically, we have done it with Japan and Germany after WWII.
The so-called surge in Iraq has had a definitive do and it appears to be a good one. Less attacks, less casualties in the last three months of 2007 contrasted greatly with more problems earlier in the year.

Sadly, when it comes to press coverage on Iraq, one thing is for determined, even with positive results, at best, glimpse for continued marginalized coverage from the media. Most of the press was considerable more enamored with politicians like Harry Reid the Democrat from Nevada who said on April 22, 2007, "the war in Iraq is lost and Bush's plan to send more troops there to quell sectarian violence won't work". According to Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., "Reid's comments tell Al Qaeda and the rest of the world that terrorists have won."

Whatever success U. S. troops and their allies have fought for will likely require a military presence for many years to come. Many in America today rightfully have problems with the many requirements for US troops acting as policeman around the world. This puts the country, politicians and the military clearly at another critical crossroads.

Both President Bush and Clinton do have one thing in common, they both told us big government is over and than proposed a long list of government programs to solve all our problems? Clinton was just better at selling the deception.

Part of Bush's legacy could be one of triggering a much larger conflict or of doing the right thing at the right time even if the polls were against it. If any kind of victory is achieved, there will be a dash of vindication. Regardless, President Bush will be remembered for the incredible spending spree while in the White House, a bill that will come due now as well as later.

The real cost to the American public for not making an effort to stay informed is to repeat over and over putting the cross people into powerful positions. Ancient Rome made the same mistake, submitting to fear of their government instead of doing what was needed to change the bread and circuses of bad government. With the electronic instruments at our fingertips we have more convenience at watching, listening and sending them our two cents worth than ever before. We the people need to demand more from our representatives. The fact that 80-90% of their time in office is spent campaigning for reelection is no longer a good excuse. Let them know they have to actually represent and truthfully drawl the people who voted for them. Those in office now need to be reminded that We the People despise many of the agenda's they have misrepresented. When our representatives work more for the elite the many will continue to suffer.

Everyone can succor in making that obvious change in America, objective do it one mind at a time, because America is too d**n good to waste.

Charleroi Farmers Market Provides More Than Produce

admin — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 07:54:39 +0000

Ninety-one year old Nicholas Encarapera from Stockdale slowly makes his way over to a table covered with a demonstrate of vegetables being unloaded from the back of a truck. He is immediately greeted by a man who knows him by name. He picks out the vegetables he wishes to take home and pays for them. Before he can even get his change, his bags are scooped up and carried to his car for him. When he decides to make his design aid to the table for more, he is immediately waited upon by the same apt man. Where exactly is Encarapera receiving such wonderful service? Surely it can not be at a chain store such as Wal-Mart, or even a small grocery store. Instead Encarpera has just made a purchase of recent gain from Joe Volker, of Volker Farms, at the Farmer's Market in Charleroi.

Encarapera said that he has been coming to the Farmers Market ever since they first opened in Charleroi, about 30 years ago. He remembers it being held on Fifth Street in the beginning and then fascinating to various locations before ending up in Magic City Square. So what has kept this man coming back every year for the past 30 years? When asked Encarapera simply replied, "I come for the modern grown vegetables."

Pam Messina is also a repeat customer of the Farmers Market. She said, "This is my third year coming. I keep coming aid because of the fresh produce from local growers."

The local growers that sell their obtain at the farmers Market near from three different farms. Harden Family Farms, located in Fredericktown, Volkar Farms, also in Fredericktown, and Skokut Farms, found in Monongahela. Each of these farmers agree that the reason they all advance to the Market is to sell their produce. As Mae Harden said, "You have to have someplace to sell you vegetables."

Nick Skokut, from Skokut Farms, has been regulary selling his vegetables at the Market since the beginning. He has faithfully come each week to sell his wares from the back of his pickup truck. The week that the Market opened, July 12, Skokut showed up, but with no vegetables to sell. Instead he had something totally different up for sale, flowers. He said, "My create wasn't ready in time so I brought flowers instead. I had a lot of them (flowers) that I had grown. They are beautiful and they have deep roots, great for planting." Skokut said that he believes his vegetable will be ready to bring to market in the next week or two, but until then you can buy some beautiful flowers from him for $1.00-$1.50 a package.

The Farmers Market is open on Thursdays from 5-9 PM. It usually runs from July through October, though most of the farmers do not stay until the end. The Market is held in Magic City Square in Charleroi, reach the old Montgomery Ward building and where Sparkle was located. The farmers only accept cash and vouchers as payment, no credit cards.

Each farm has differnt prices for their produce, but for the price is well worth it. As Joe Volker said, " The Farmers Market is a chance to salvage fresh home grown produce. The flavor is much fresher." Skokut agreed and went on to say, "People want original produce.Here the price is lower and the service is better than big markets."

What does it take for these farmers to participate in the Market? According to Mae Harden, it takes insurance and money. However is is also as Mae said, and these farms have proven, "It take a dedicated farmer."

Strategies to Save on Car Insurance

admin — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 07:52:44 +0000

Will everyone who hates buying car insurance stand up. That one emptied the seats. Now, everyone who is glad to have insurance thirty seconds after an accident sit down. No doubt, that refilled all of the chairs. Despite the Progressive Insurance commercials, we all still wonder if our car insurance could somehow be cheaper.

Actually, there are some ways to cause your automobile insurance costs to drop without selling off your vehicles and buying a bicycle. By objective following some simple suggestions, your car insurance may be able to be lowered by double digit percentage points.

When you get ready to buy or replace a vehicle, check with your insurance agent first. Your agent can show what models carry a lower rating for insurance cost. Sometimes, you can buy a car in the same size and price range by a different manufacturer, and it will make a expansive impact on insurance costs. If you are buying a car that failed in many of the crash tests, your insurance will be more. Buying a car that is on the hot list for car thieves will up your insurance cost.

If the cost of insurance is a problem for you, stay away from cars that are rated as sports cars. Insurance companies see these as claims waiting to happen. They do not question if the claim will come, but just wonder when. Usually it comes sooner than later.

Sports cars have another disadvantage in insurance costs. The police are much less likely to give you the benefit of the doubt when they pull you over. People in sports cars speed more. They are more likely to do racing on the road ways. Sports car drivers frequently are more discourteous to others and talk offensively to the men and women in blue. Sports cars are more often on the list of cars to be stolen.

Changing your driving habits will lower your insurance bill. If you carpool more, the number of miles driven per year should decrease. This means that you might tumble below that magic 5,000 or 7,500 or 10,000 miles per year that insurance companies look for. Insurance companies also like to hear that you do not drive to work everyday.

Maintain younger drivers off of your policy. If you can tell the insurance company that you have no drivers under about 25 or so to insure, they will smile and lower your cost. Younger drivers are considered more uncertain and expensive to insurers. When you no longer need to carry them, it will save you a considerable amount of money.

Avoid speeding and reckless driving habits. Insurance companies hate tickets as much as young drivers and sports cars. Except in very rare occasions, speeding is entirely controlled by the driver. If you get a speeding ticket, you were at fault. Lighten up on the accelerator and save money on your insurance. Tickets are reported to the state and insurance companies check driving records closely.

Shop annually for car insurance. Not all insurers adjust their rates at the same time. Some may have no real increases for several years. Others do annual step ups. By contacting 4 or 5 agents once a year, you increase your chances of finding cheaper insurance with the same or similar coverages. Do not be afraid to switch as long as it is a reputable company. Avoid places with names like: "Joe's Bar and Insurance Company."