President Bush spends $222,000 on Bathroom Renovation, President Obama adds $5.3 Trillion to the Federal Debt

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 20th, 2013

Week in Review

President Obama added approximately $5,294,450,000,000 to the federal debt in four years.  While President George W. Bush added $2,660,250,000,000 in eight years.  So President Obama is clearly outspending President Bush.  Even though the Interior Department under George W. Bush spent $222,000 to renovate a 100-square-foot bathroom (see Interior Department’s 2007 bathroom renovation cost $222,000 by Stephanie Condon posted 1/16/2013 on CBS News).

In 2007, the Interior Department wasn’t skimping on its own interior. The department spent $222,000 that year to renovate the bathroom in the interior secretary’s private office.

Under the direction of President George W. Bush’s Interior secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, the department made a number of lavish renovations to the 100-square-foot bathroom: New wall panels cost more than $1,500, while custom cabinetry was installed for $26,000. The bathroom was outfitted with a $689 faucet, a $65 vintage tissue holder and even a $3,500 refrigerator…

The Interior Department said the renovations — which were approved and contracted by the General Services Administration — were needed because of water leaks in the bathroom. The GSA told CBSNews.com, “These renovations began in 2007, which predates the current leadership at both the GSA and the Department of Interior. Under the current leadership, we have greater oversight to ensure the responsible use of taxpayer dollars. The renovations were part of a larger restoration project at the historic facility.”

Did the GSA spokesperson say this with a straight face?  That they have greater oversight under the current leadership?  Right.  Pull the other one.

The near trillion-dollar stimulus package was going to explode all that shovel-ready work.  But it actually went to shore up public sector pension and health care plans.  Investments in clean renewable energy didn’t produce any new jobs of the future but instead repaid campaign bundlers.  The auto bailout didn’t help the auto companies become more competitive.  Which was their ultimate problem.  And why they couldn’t fund their pension and health care liabilities.

The bailout did not make GM or Chrysler more competitive.  It just injected cash into the UAW pension and health care plans.  And the only reason why they’re profitable now is because they aren’t paying any federal income taxes.  Their stock price has even fallen.  For as the government sells their GM stock they’re selling it at a loss.  So the taxpayer is collecting no taxes from GM.  And they are not going to get all their money back from the bailout.  And this is greater oversight to ensure the responsible use of taxpayer dollars?

Gee, I’d hate to see irresponsible oversight.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The NHS uses Midwives to facilitate Cost-Effective Mass-Production Baby Birthing

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 20th, 2013

Week in Review

In America pregnant women see doctors.  When they go into labor they have doctors deliver their baby.  It’s not like that in Britain.  Their National Health Service (NHS) has determined it is not cost-effective to have doctors deal with pregnancies and birth.  In Britain midwives handle pregnancies and births.  Highly trained individuals who work one-on-one with pregnant women through their pregnancies, deliver their babies and attend to post-natal care.  In special birthing wards.  Or at home.  The way humans did it for hundreds of millions of years before doctors and hospitals appeared on the scene.

In America, though, women go to the hospital when they enter labor.  And have a doctor deliver their babies.  At least so far.  As Obamacare takes America towards national health care they may adopt cost-saving procedures just like the NHS.  And regulate pregnancies and births to midwives.  Where having a baby will change in the United States and become more like it is in the UK.  And be more like this (see Pregnant women ‘unsupported’ by NHS by Rebecca Smith posted 1/20/2013 on The Telegraph).

A survey in the annual state of maternity services report by the College found that four in 10 women see up to nine or 10 midwives during their pregnancy instead of being able to build a relationship and confidence in one, as is recommended.

Also one fifth of women are left alone during labour, contrary to guidelines saying women should have one to one care.

Midwives are overstretched due to a baby boom and increasing numbers of women over the age of 40 having babies who require extra care due to a high risk of complications, experts said…

“In labour the majority of women are getting high quality care that is needed to be safe but one fifth of the women we surveyed said they did not get adequate support in labour. The wards are so busy that there are occasions when midwives are not able to give women the concentrated care they would like.”

Elizabeth Duff, Senior Policy Adviser at the National Childbirth Trust, said: “Anxiety and tension about being left alone means women cannot relax and focus on their labour: this in turn leads to more use of pain-relieving drugs and higher levels of intervention, which most women wish to avoid so that they are well and fit to start caring for their baby after the birth…”

The majority of women are getting high quality care that is needed to be safe.  And when that quality level falls a little and they complain too much they give them pain-relieving drugs.  To quiet them down.  So they can return to the business of mass-production baby birthing.  The cost-effective way.  And soon to be the Obamacare way.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Despite Osama bin Laden being Dead al Qaeda Killed a US Ambassador and took Americans Hostage

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 20th, 2013

Week in Review

Osama bin Laden is dead and GM is alive.  This was the constant refrain during the 2012 presidential election.  The Obama team spiked the Osama bin Laden football to no end.  And stated victory in the war with al Qaeda.  Saying al Qaeda was on the ropes.  On the path to destruction.  It was President Obama’s George W. Bush (W) ‘Mission Accomplished’ moment.  The war was over.  And President Obama won it.  The enemy, al Qaeda, is no more.  At least that’s what President Obama says.  But then you read things like this (see US doesn’t feel stakes in Mali ‘as intensely’ as France by Jon FROSCH posted 1/19/2013 on France24).

In the days following the start of France’s offensive against al Qaeda-inspired groups in Mali on January 11, top US officials offered strong statements of support.

“We have a responsibility to go after al Qaeda wherever they are,” US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters during a trip to Europe, while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged that “instability in Mali has created the opportunity for a staging base and safe haven for terrorists”.

The US has offered logistical support (airlift assistance, reinforced intelligence and supplies to French and African forces) to French operations in the country’s former colony. But it has made no decision yet as to whether it will provide surveillance drones or aerial refuelling for French jets, as requested by France. Furthermore, the authorities have said there are no plans to send in American troops.

Indeed, the US response to unrest in Mali has been measured, even as American citizens are being held hostage by Islamist militants in neighbouring Algeria.

Apparently al Qaeda is not on the ropes after all.  They’re toppling governments.  Taking hostages.  Storming consulate buildings in Benghazi.  And killing U.S. ambassadors.  Of course, the last was explained away by the Obama administration as being a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video.  Which it wasn’t.  No, al Qaeda is not on the ropes.  One could even say they are growing stronger under President Obama’s watch.  For no American ambassadors were killed on W’s watch.  And no hostages were taken.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Lithium Ion Battery Fires ground entire Boeing 787 Dreamliner Fleet

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 20th, 2013

Week in Review

The big drawback for electric cars is range.  For after a battery powers all the electrical systems (heating, cooling, lights, etc.) what charge is left is for going places.  And if that place is more than 30 miles away few people will feel comfortable taking a chance that they will have enough charge to drive there and back.  Unless that trip is to work where the car can recharge for 8-9 hours while at work.

Range anxiety is the greatest drawback to an all-electric car.  For if you run out of charge there is only one way to get your car home.  With a tow truck.  For you can’t walk to a gas station and ask for a can of charge to pour into the battery.  Charging needs an electrical source.  And time.  So the Holy Grail of the all-electric car industry is a battery that can hold a lot of charge.  But is small and does not weigh a lot.  And can be recharged in a very short time.  Right now that Holy Grail is the lithium ion battery.

But there is a cost for this Holy Grail.  There is a lot of chemistry to do this.  Chemistry that can produce a lot of heat.  Catch fire.  And explode.  Which has happened in some electric cars.  As well as in some airplanes (see Bad Batteries Seen as Best Case for 787 Overcoming Past by Susanna Ray, Alan Levin & Peter Robison posted 1/18/2013 on Bloomberg).

Other aircraft bleed air off the engines for a pneumatic system to power a variety of critical functions, such as air conditioning. That diverts power from the engines that they could otherwise use for thrust, and means they use more fuel.

With an electrical system for the jet’s other needs, the engines become much more efficient. The 787 uses five times as much electricity as the 767, enough to power 400 homes. To jump- start a so-called auxiliary power unit that’s used on the ground and as a backup in case all the plane’s generators failed, Boeing decided on a lithium-ion battery because it holds more energy and can be quickly recharged, Mike Sinnett, the 787 project engineer, said in a briefing last week.

Those capabilities also make lithium-ion cells more flammable than other battery technology, and they can create sparks and high heat if not properly discharged. Chemicals inside the battery are also flammable and hard to extinguish because they contain their own source of oxygen, Sinnett said.

A couple of battery fires have grounded all Boeing 787 Dreamliners.  The last commercial jetliner to receive such an order was the McDonnell Douglas DC-10.   Which happened after an engine came off while taking off at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago.  Due to a maintenance error in changing out the left engine and pylon.  Causing the plane to crash.  After investigation they found the slats did not mechanically latch into position.  When the engine ripped out the hydraulic lines the slats retracted and the wing stalled.  The plane slowly banked to the left and fell out of the sky.  Killing all on board.  The DC-10s were grounded worldwide until the hydraulic lines were better protected and the slats latched to prevent them from retracting on the loss of hydraulic pressure.  Now no 787s have crashed.  But few things are deadlier to an airborne aircraft than a fire.  For there is nothing pilots can do other than to continue to fly towards an airport while the plane is consumed by fire.

Stored chemical oxygen generators in the hull of ValuJet Flight 592 were stored improperly.  They were activated.  Producing oxygen by a chemical reaction that generated a lot of heat.  The heat started a fire and the oxygen fueled it.  Once the pilots were aware of the fire they turned to the nearest airport.  But the fire consumed the airplane and fell out of the sky before they could land.  Killing all on board.

Fire on an airplane rarely ends well.  Which explains the grounding of the entire 787 fleet.  Because these lithium ion batteries run very hot when they make electricity.  And they can generate oxygen.  Which is the last thing you want on an aircraft.  However, both Airbus and Boeing are using them because they are the Holy Grail of batteries.  They’re small and light and can hold a lot of charge and nothing can recharge as fast as they can.  Which is why they are the choice for all-electric cars.  Even though some of them have caught fire.  This is the tradeoff.  Smaller and lighter batteries are smaller and lighter for a reason.  Because of powerful chemical reactions that can go wrong.  So to be safe you should park your electric car outside and away from your house.  In case it catches fire you’ll only lose your car.  And not your garage or house.  Or you can stick to the gasoline-powered car and not worry about battery fires.  Or range.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Abortion and Birth Control are Bankrupting Social Security and Medicare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 20th, 2013

Week in Review

For the first time in history a credit reporting agency (Standard and Poor’s) downgraded the U.S bond rating in 2011.  Why?  The agency said they needed to see $4 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years.  The best Congress could do was $917 billion in spending cuts over 10 years.  And the creation of a super-committee to find another $1.5 trillion.  For a total of $2.417 trillion in spending cuts.  At least, on paper.  That never happened.  After winning reelection the president held out for and got increases in tax rates.  So he could increase spending.

So how did the U.S. get to where they needed to cut $4 trillion in spending?  Well, a large part of it has to do with abortion (see 55,772,015 Abortions in America Since Roe vs. Wade in 1973 by Steven Ertelt posted 1/18/2013 on LifeNews.com).

The United States marks 40 years of legalized abortion in all fifty states at any time for any reason throughout pregnancy on January 22nd, the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Since that time, there have been approximately 55,772,015 abortions that have destroyed the lives of unborn children.

Taxpayers pay taxes.  And how do we get taxpayers?  By having babies.  So when we aborted over 55 million babies the effect on tax revenue was profound.  We can see how by making some assumptions.  And doing a little math.

First of all, 55,772,015 abortions over 39 years come to on average 1,430,052 abortions a year.  Dividing this number by two to pair off couples for baby-making that comes to 715,026 couples.  Without abortion available we’ll assume about 80% of these couples will have children.

The first babies of the 715,026 enter the workforce 20 years later.  So in that year the number of additional workers paying taxes equals 2,002,072 (1,430,052 + (0.8 X 715,026)).  The following year the second child of this couple enters the workforce while another couple’s first child enters the workforce.  This brings the additional workers paying taxes equal 3,146,114.  And so on until each couple brings in three new taxpayers into the workforce. Over a decade the number of new workers paying taxes equals 110,685,999.

Assuming a median income of $50,000 these 110,685,999 taxpayers earn a total of $5.5 trillion over ten years.  Assuming an effective federal income tax rate of 18% the total federal income tax these people would have paid equals approximately $996 billion.

Using the 12.4% Social Security tax rate (both employer and employee) the amount of Social Security taxes these people would have provided over 10 years equals approximately $686 billion.

Using the 2.9% Medicare tax rate the amount of Medicare taxes these people would have provided over 10 years equals approximately $160 billion.

Adding these taxes together (Social Security and Medicare) they add up to $847 billion.  Adding this to the amount of federal income taxes brings the amount of taxes these people would have provided over ten years to about $1.8 trillion.

When they wrote Social Security and Medicare into law the average family size had fallen from around 5 to about 3.5 over a decade or so.  If you take that $1.8 trillion and adjust it for 3.5 children (1.8/3 X 3.5) the lost tax revenue equals $2.15 trillion.  At 4 children that lost tax revenue comes to $2.5 trillion.  At 5 children that lost tax revenue comes to $3.1 trillion.  At 6 children it’s $3.7 trillion.

Today’s seniors entered child-bearing age long before women’s liberation, birth control and abortion.  So most women got married and had children.  It is not uncommon for today’s seniors to come from families of 10 children or more.  This is significant because when the actuaries set up Social Security and Medicare they assumed these trends would continue.  But they didn’t.  The birth rate (and the population growth rate) declined since Social Security and Medicare became law.  Causing the population to age.  More people are now leaving the workforce and collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits than there are workers entering the workforce to pay for them.

Abortion has been a part of this decline.  In a current 10-year projection we are seeing anywhere from $1.8 trillion to $3.7 trillion in lost tax revenue due to abortion.  If Roe v. Wade didn’t legalize abortion and the Left didn’t assault the family (encouraging women NOT to get married or have children) during the Seventies as radical feminism took off there would have been a lot more births.  Perhaps as many as those actuaries thought there would be when they calculated the costs of Social Security and Medicare.

If normal family patterns had continued not only would these abortions not have happened families may have had more children.  Producing more taxpayers.  There were 3,136,965 live births in 1973.  The average family size then was about 2.5.  If you divide the number of births by average family size you get about 1,254,786 families having children.  If each of these families had one additional child that additional 1,254,786 children would be approximately 87.7% of the average number of abortions.  If these children grew up to have three children of their own we can calculate this additional tax revenue the same way we did for the loss revenue from abortion.  Or we can multiply the loss revenue from abortion ($1.8 trillion) by 87.7% to approximate what those additional children in 1973 would contribute in a ten-year projection today.  Approximately $1.9 trillion.  Adding the losses from abortion and families having one less child brings the total of loss tax revenue to $4.04 trillion.  Which equals the $4 trillion S&P was looking for in spending cuts.

So what is the cause for America’s deficits?   Is it because the rich aren’t paying their fair share in taxes?  No.  It’s because of abortion and birth control.  And radical feminism.  That attacked the family and encouraged women to do anything but get married and have children.  Something FDR and his New Dealers never designed Social Security and Medicare to take into account.  For FDR and his New Dealers were sexists.  As are Social Security and Medicare.  These programs require women to marry and have children to stay solvent.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,